2011 (9) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were rejected.   2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of building the bus bodies on the chassis supplied by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. M/s Tata Motors Ltd cleared the chassis on payment of appropriate duty and the appellants were availing credit on the duty paid on chassis and also purchasing duty paid inputs which are used in the fabrication of bodies. Thereafter the complete buses were cleared on payment of appropriate duty to DTA and some buses were also cleared under bond for export.   3. The appellants filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the duty paid on inputs used in the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in 1997 (94) ELT A-128 (SC). The appellants also rely on the decision of the Tribunal in Swaraj Mazda Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2000 (125) ELT 959 (Tribunal) to submit that the body builders being separate independent manufacturers are liable to pay duty on the manufactured motor vehicle. The contention is that being the manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appellants entitled to file refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.   5. The Revenue submitted that the appellants were receiving duty paid chassis and availing credit in respect of the duty paid and discharging duty on the complete buses after utilizing such credit. In some case, the appellants were receiving chassis under bond and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under heading 8706 shall amount to manufacturer of a motor vehicle.   8. In view of above Chapter Note, the activities undertaken by the appellants amount to manufacture.   9. The Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co Ltd (supra) where the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co (TELCO) cleared chassis to the body builders for body building on payment of appropriate duty and thereafter TELCO sells the motor vehicles and the Revenue raised a demand on TELCO on the fully build motor vehicle. In that situation the Hon ble Patna High Court held that the independent body builders are manufacturers of body on its own account and not for or on behalf of TELCO and TELCO cannot be held to be manufactur....