2006 (5) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair,  Member (J)]. - The respondent has been building bodies on motor vehicle chassis. Disputes arose with the Revenue as to whether duty was payable by the appellant in regard to vehicle made as well as scrap arising in the body building. Show-cause notices were issued. 2. In adjudication, the Commissioner he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption from levy of duty. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the distinction being made by the Revenue is not permissible in view of the Circular dated 23rd July, 2001 of the board which makes it clear that "prior to 1-3-2001, it was not the intention of the Government to charge duty on the activity of the body building on job work basis on duty paid chassis". The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and not the result of any suppression of facts by the respondent Assessee. 7. On the question of applicability of proviso, we find in favour of the Assessee. That there was an erroneous practice of assessing chassis under 8702 is noted in para '2' of exemption Notification No. 27 of 2001 itself. Further, as pointed out by the Learned Counsel, letter dated 23rd July, 2001 of the Department....