2007 (5) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... V. Seshagiri Rao, SDR for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member Judicial 1. In each of these appeals, the Revenue has challenged grant of refund of an amount of duty to the Respondents by the Lower Appellate Authority. The Respondents were engaged in the activity of body building on chassis of various vehicles. Prior to April 1986. duty of Dxcise was not le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dule and SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE would be available to the Body-Builders. In that case, the Revenue had claimed classification under Headings 87.02 and 87.04 (depending on whether the body building activity was done on chassis of buses or trucks). It was the contention of the Assessee that was accepted by the Apex Court and hence, the above classification under Heading 87.07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order, that, as the Respondents in the said batch of appeals were not parties to the civil appeals or SLPs considered by the Apex Court in Ram Body Builders (supra), the benefit of the Apex Court's decision would not be available to the said Respondents. However, as the question arose as to whether the assessments were provisional or not, the Tribunal remanded the case of the Respondents in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y-building on chassis of motor vehicle classifiable under Heading 87.02 or Heading 87.04 would be classifiable under Heading 87.07. It was a decision binding on all authorities by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. Moreover, classification being a departmental function, the classification finalized by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Body Builders (supra) would be binding on the Revenue v....