TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods manufactured by the appellants are described as "Drilling Rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis". The lower authority by following the Apex Court decision in the case of LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. [2004 (163) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.)] classified the impugned goods under Chapter heading No. 8705.00. He further held that the appellant is not entitled for availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/99 in respect of the impugned goods. He demanded a duty of Rs. 16,17,298/- for the period from April 1999 to March 2002 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act. Even though the Show Cause Notice was issued in October 1999, the adjudication was completed only on 31-8-2004 presumably ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ires a crane to mount the drilling rigs on the chassis, apart from the lorry. The door of the factory was very small through which the crane cannot be taken. (ii) The appellant had wrongly submitted in the reply to the Show Cause Notice that they were engaged in the manufacture of water drilling rigs mounted on the duty paid chassis. As the drilling rigs were mounted on the duty paid chassis outside the factory by the labourers of lorry owners itself, they were under the impression that the product should be classified as mounted on duty paid chassis. The partners of the appellants were the old employees of Spaar Equipments. They had resigned and started similar business. The Spaar Equipments had classified their product as "Water Dri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, the same was mounted by lorry owners. This can be even verified with the prices charged for the same. Wherever it was mounted by the lorry owners, the price was charged in the range of Rs. 5 lakhs. In view of the above the learned Consultant prayed that the impugned goods should be classified under Chapter heading 8430 of the Central Excise Tariff. Further, he stated that the Supreme Court decision is not applicable for the above mentioned reasons. 4. The learned JDR pointed out that the assessee themselves stated in their reply to Show Cause Notice that they were manufacturing "water drilling rigs mounted on chassis". 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue of classification of water drilling r....