TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of Jeeps falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 34-I(2)(ii) to motor vehicles with body 34-I(2)(i)(b) of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, after body building amounting to manufacture of motor vehicle. The Collector of Central Excise vide impugned order dropped the proceedings against the respondents. 3. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that motor vehicles with chassis manufactured and cleared by M/s. Mahendra and Mahendra falls under Tariff Item 34-I(ii) attracting the excise duty at the rate of 30% and when fitted with body, it becomes motor vehicles with body and therefore is classifiable under Tariff Item 34-I(ii)(ib) of the tariff. The Revenue contended that by fitting Fibre glass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d cleared after payment of duty before fitment of the vehicles. Therefore the process of fitting the FRP body on the duty paid chassis does not amount to manufacture. He submits that the respondents are carrying out the activity of body building under two different categories. 5. The first category is that the body building is activity on the vehicle which are received by the appellant from Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. under Rule 56B of the Rules in respect of these vehicles after fitment of the body, vehicles were sent back to the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules. In the second case the body fitment activity is in respect of other vehicles which are known as NC vehicles. The NC vehicles are fully ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e duty and these are classifiable under Tariff Item 34(I)(2)(b) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 9. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order observed that the chassis received from the customers on payment of duty were motor vehicles and that remained so even after the fitment on FRP body kit and thus does not constitute manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order contended that parts of FRP body are cleared from the factory on payment of duty. Therefore there was no need to pay further duty on body building. 10. The contention of the Revenue is that motor vehicles with chassis are classifiable under T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Fifteen per cent ad valorem III. Trailers Ten per cent ad valorem 11. The Tariff Entry says that motor vehicles with the body are classifiable under Tariff Entry No. 34-I(2)(b) of the Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that they are not manufacturing the motor vehicles and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant are manufacturing motor vehicles. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise also noted the fact that from the records it is verified that the appellants are paying duty on the component of FRP body before fitment on the vehicle. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that the chassis fitted with the engine were duty paid. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he words or expressions must be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intention when the statute was enacted. Applying these tests, the bodies build/fabricated by the petitioners on the chassis supplied by the customers cannot be terms to be motor vehicles. The petitioners do not proclaim or give out that they are manufacturing or selling motor vehicles. No person who wants to purchase a motor vehicle will go to the petitioners for this purpose, because the people in the transport business do not associate in their minds the body of the motor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal filed by the Union of India against the decision was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment of Union of India v. Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 532. The Revenue filed the Special Leave Petition against this decision and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Ram Body Builders reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) - 1997 (22) RLT 441 (S.C.). 13. In the case, Collector of Customs v. Roplas India Ltd. reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 240 the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh held that converting the duty pai....