2015 (5) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period of dispute in these appeals is from April 07 to March 11. During this period, the appellant in terms of their contract with M/s Ashok Leyland, and vehicle factory, Jabalpur had constructed body on the chassis received form M/s Ashok Leyland and vehicle factory Jabalpur. M/s Ashok Leyland and vehicle factory, Jabalpur had cleared the chassis to the appellant on payment of duty. M/s Ashok Leyland and vehicle factory, Jabalpur had received an order from the Directorate of ordnance services, New Delhi for supply of vehicles of certain specifications and while chassis had been manufactured by them, for construction of bodies on the chassis, the same had been sent to the appellant. The appellant constructed body on the duty paid chassis r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial duty was demanded by issue of Show Cause Notice, and accordingly the duty demands were confirmed by five separate orders passed by Assistant/Joint Commissioner along with interest and penalties were also imposed. On appeals being field to Commissioner (Appeals) against these orders, the same were dismissed. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri D K Tyagi, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant are eligible for notification no. 6/06-CE (Serial No. 41), as they have manufactured body on the chassis, out of duty paid chasses and have not availed Central Credit of the duty paid on the chassis, that accordingly, the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 2013 (298) ELT A186 SC and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned orders are not correct. 4. Shri Yashpal Sharma, Ld. DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The appellant are a body builder who construct the body, on the chassis received by them. During the period of dispute, the appellant had received duty paid chassis from M/s Ashok Leyland and vehicle factory, Jabalpur who had received orders from the Directorate of Ordnance Services, New Delhi for supply of certain types of vehicles. There is no dispute that M/s Ashok Leyland and vehicle factory, Jabalpur have cleared the duty paid chassis to ....