2012 (5) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uring the period of dispute from October 1997 to December 2002, among other items, they were fabricating LPG tanks which were being fitted by them on the chassis of semi-trailers received by them. Though the semi-trailers fitted with LPG tanks cleared by them were not mechanically propelled, they were paying duty on the same by classifying them under Heading 87.04. However, duty was being paid by the appellants only on the value of the LPG tank and not on the value of the chassis on which the LPG tank had been fitted, as according to them they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/97, dated 1-3-97 (Serial No. 209 of the table annexed to the Notification) which prescribed concessional rate of duty for the vehicles of Heading 8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant Company. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellants, pleaded that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant were manufacturing LPG tank and were fitting the same on the chassis received from the customers and the chassis was for semi-trailers, that though the goods manufactured by them being semi-trailers, not mechanically propelled were classifiable under Heading 87.15, the appellants were paying duty on the same under Heading 87.04, that Notification No. 4/97-C.E., is applicable to the vehicles covered under Heading 87.02, 87.03, 87.04 or 87.16 manufactured by the manufacturer other than the manufacturer of chassis, that there is no dispute about th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....L.T. 513 (Tri.-Kolkata) para 13 of the judgment has observed that chassis means "basic operating motor vehicle including engine frame and other essential structural and mechanical parts, but exclusive of body and appurtenances and overall accommodation of driver", that the duty demand is time-barred, as longer limitation period is not available to the department for recovery of alleged short paid duty, as there was no suppression of any fact on the part of the appellant, that the appellants' activities had been disclosed vide letter dated 16-10-2001 of M/s. Spacetech Equipments Pvt. Ltd., a sister unit the appellant addressed to the Range Superintendent wherein the activity had been disclosed and that in view of the above submissions, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat since Shri Ganesh Chandra Ghosh, Director of the appellant Company, had dealt with the goods, which knew were liable for confiscation, penalty under 209A has been rightly imposed and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant company is a body builder, who fabricate the LPG tanks and fix the same on the chassis received from their customers and the resultant goods are that semi-trailers. There is no dispute that semi-trailers are not mechanically propelled vehicles and would be eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 4/77-C.E., even though the appellant had classified the same u....