TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cember 1995. The appellants cleared the said product on payment of duties while claiming ex emption under the said notification. The respondent thereupon under show cause notices dated 4th August, 1995 , 30th January 1996 and 23rd April 1996 called the appellants to show cause as to why the exemption claimed under the said notification should not be denied and the duty difference should not be recovered with interest and penalty. After hearing the appellants, the original authority namely, Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh disallowed the exemption under the said notification and confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs. 1,66,05,716/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 17 of the- Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached this Tribunal. Though the penalty was set aside in the said appeal, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the order rejecting exemption under notification. The matter was then carried by the appellants to the Apex Court. Simultaneously, the Department also challenged the order of the Tribunal holding that duty was required to be paid in terms of the decision of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernment in relation to the Notification 463/86-C.E. dated 9th December 1986, which was also issued on the same lines of the notification in question, discloses that the benefit under Notification No. 463/86 was also available to the chassis and there was no justification to deny the same in the case of Notification No. 462/86. Further, drawing our attention to various letters by the competent authorities, the learned Counsel submitted that the same reveal that the authorities had never distinguished between the chassis with or without the cabin and body for the purpose of granting incentive for manufacture of fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicle with pay load not exceeding 4000 kg. and falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule, apart from the fact that the similar benefit was granted to the chassis manufactured by other manufacturers including Ashok Leyland. Referring to Explanatory Notes as well as Chapter Notes of Chapter 87, learned Counsel submitted that the same do not make differentiation between the motor vehicle comprising of chassis with body mounted on it and the motor vehicle comprising of chassis without the body for the purpose of any exemption to be granted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it relates to light commercial motor vehicles and therefore, it cannot be presumed to relate to the chassis alone. Since the appellants themselves had classified their product as the chassis it is not now open to the appellants to claim the same to be motor vehicle within the meaning of the said expression under the said notification. In order to enable the assessee to avail exemption under notification issued under Central Excise Act or rules made thereunder, a product specified in such notification is to be understood with reference to the entries in the tariff schedule. As regards the contention regarding discriminatory treatment to the appellants, the appellants have merely produced a letter addressed to Ashok Leyland company which on the face of it nowhere discloses that clearance of the product by Ashok Leyland was in similar fact situation and therefore, there is no scope to accuse the Department of giving discriminatory treatment in relation to the product of the appellants. He further submitted that Chapter Note in Chapter 87 having read along with sub-headings 86.01 to 86.06 would reveal that the product classifiable under heading 86.06 is different from the product cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....985 (5 of 1986), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 10 percent ad valorein. Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, "fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle which satisfies the specific fuel consumption and net-tonne kilometre moved per litre of diesel as specified in columns (3), (4) and (5) of the Table hereto annexed, with fur ther upgradation of kilomeres or net tonne kilomers norms from the date from which such upgraded norms shall be applicable, as specified in column (6) of the said table. and certified accordingly by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Industry Department of Industrial Development on the basis of the tests (hereinafter referred to as the Fuel-Efficiency Test) carried out by the Vehicle Research Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence, Ahmednagar (Maharashtra) or the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune (Maharashtra), having regard to the following, namely :- (a) the fuel efficiency test shall be conducted for the rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here W is the GVW of the vehicle in tormes and t is the pay load in tonnes NTKMPL - Net Tonne Kilometre Per Litre." 7. The Notification undoubtedly specifically refers to " light commercial motor vehicles", and further specifies that the same shall be "falling within Chapter 87" of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Notification further explains that for the purpose of the said notification, the 'fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicles' means a motor vehicle which satisfies the fuel consumption net-tonne kilometres moved per litre of diesel as specified in column (3), (4) & (5) of the table annexed thereto, with further upgradation of kilometres or net tonne kilometres norms from the date from which such up graded norms shall be applicable, as specified in column (6) of the said table. It further explains that such vehicle should be certified by the authorities mentioned in the said Notification on the basis of the lest to be carried out in the manner specified under the notification. In other words, the notification on the face of it describes the nature of the product which would be entitled to avail exemption under the said notification. Firstly, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 9. It is pertinent to note that even the Govt. while dealing with Notification No. 463/86-C.E., dated 9th December 1986 had understood the same to indude chassis. The Notification 463/86-C.E. dated 9th December 1986 reads thus - "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (l of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts fuel-efficient light commercial motor vehicles of pay-load not exceeding 4000 kilograms and employing injection type of diesel engine and falling within Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem provided that such motor vehicles are manufactured under the programme approved by them by the Ministry of Industry and Industrial Advisor of Directorate General of Technical Development in the Ministry of Industry" The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under their letter dated 28th August 1987 with reference to the above Notification No. 463/86 had clari fied thus - "I am directed to refer to your letter F. No. V. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he description of motor vehicle is concerned, so as to include therefrom the chassis fitted with engine. 13. Then is yet another reason which leaves no scope for us to reject the claim of the appellants. The Department under order dated 8th February 1988 while accepting the claim of the appellants to avail the exemption under Notification in question even in relation to the chassis fitted with engines which were classifiable under sub-heading 87.06 had granted exemption to the chassis cleared by the appellants. Though it is sought to be contended that the decision will not bind the Department to take the same view even for the subsequent period even though some new facts have come to light, the Department has not explained anywhere in that regard about alleged new facts which would justify taking the view different from the one taken earlier in 1988. Undoubtedly, the department is not prohibited from correcting its mistake. If from the records they are able to show that the earlier view was taken under mistake, the same should be revealed from the facts to be placed on record to justify the change in view. No such efforts have been made on behalf of the Department in the case in h....