2010 (3) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....29-7-2002 and 8-10-2004 respectively. The appeal filed by the proprietor is against the penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed on him under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It appears from the records that, during the material period, the assessee was engaged in the activity of building body on chassis supplied by motor vehicle manufacturers. They paid duty on their products, which were cleared to the chassis suppliers, at the effective rate specified under the relevant notifications, viz., No. 4/97-C.E., 5/98-C.E. 5/99-C.E., 6/00-C.E., 3/01-C.E. and 6/02-C.E. In the relevant show-cause notices, the department denied the benefit of the relevant notifications to the assessee by insisting that the value of the chassis and other items sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication was misconstrued by the lower authority. According to the authorities below, 'chassis' could not include 'running gear' and, therefore the value of the 'running gear' was liable to be included in the assessable value of the semi-trailer. On the other hand, the ld. JDR claims supports from the Tribunal's decision in Heat Weld v. CCE, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 432 (Tri.) to the above view taken by the lower authorities. 4. Both sides have also adverted to the time-bar issue, inasmuch as a major part of the demand of duty raised in the first show cause notice is beyond the normal period of limitation. The ld. JDR has also cited a few decisions of the Tribunal in this connection. 5. After considering the submissions, we note that there is ....