TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and subsequent Notification No.06/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the Notifications on the ground that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions of the Notifications. Hence the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,64,66,630/- alongwith interest and also liable to penalty of equal amount as per the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the benefit of the Notifications were denied on the sole ground that no duty is payable on the equipments. The contention is that as per the conditions of the Notifications, the benefit is available if the manufacturer is manufacturing Special Purpose veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide that the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of the Notifications in respect of Special Purpose Vehicle if manufactured out of chassis and equipments on which duty of excise leviable has already been paid. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Hydraulics Industries reported in 2003 (152) ELT 12 (SC) P. The contention is that in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of the Tariff where nil rate of duty is available to Special Purpose Motor vehicles, if appropriate duty of excise has been paid on the chassis and on the equipment used in the manufacture of such vehicles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the excise duty has been paid on the chas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting Vehicles. Therefore, in view of this admitted facts that appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification. Hence the demand is rightly made. 7. We find the demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No.06/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and for the subsequent period Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The relevant portions of Notifications read as under: Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 Sr No Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. or Tariff Item of the first Schedule Description of the excisable goods Rate Condition No. 217 8705 Special purpose motor vehicle Nil 55 Annexure Condition No. Conditions 55. If manufactured out of cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case if India Hydraulic Industries cited supra while interpreting the provision of Tariff which provides nil rate of duty for Special Purpose Vehicles on the same condition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the demand which was confirmed on the ground that duty has not been paid on the equipment use in the manufacture of Special Purpose Motor Vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "7. ...The exemption of the notification is being denied to the appellant on the ground that they had not paid duty on the equipment used. The body manufactured by the appellants and fitted on the duty paid chassis is considered as being equipment. To be noted that this is not a case where a demand is made on the footing that at....