2012 (3) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The duty demand in the impugned order is confirmed against the first applicant. On the second applicant there is a penalty of Rs. three crores imposed. 2. The first applicant was manufacturing chassis for ambulances and sending it to the second applicant for building body of the ambulances on such chassis. The period of dispute is from 1-4-2005 to 13-11-2009 and the amount of duty demanded is Rs. 7,54,40,318/-, along with equal amount of penalty. Out of this an amount of Rs. 14,68,701/- has already been deposited by the first applicant. 3. The first dispute is with reference to valuation of the ambulances with complete body whether it should be valued on cost construction basis or on the basis of the sale price of the ambula....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 - Other 7. After 2005, when eight digit classification of goods covered under the above headings were introduced a specific entry has been inserted under Heading 87.03 with Tariff Item No. 8703 33 92 covering "specialised transport vehicle such as ambulances, prison vans and the like". The argument of Revenue is that since there is a specific eight digit entry for ambulances under heading 87.03 ambulances were classifiable under 87.03 for the whole period that is even for the period prior to 2005, though there is no such specific entry prior to 2005. The duty demand is confirmed on such basis. 8. The contention of the applicants is that motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of more than six persons exclu....