TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants contend that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 8708 as various motor vehicle parts during the impugned period from 15th September, 2005 to 30th November, 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellants are as follows: 2.1 The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle chassis falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants inter alia cleared the goods manufactured by them to the vehicle factory at Jabalpur in terms of an agreement entered into with the Ordnance Factory Board. The appellants have various divisions within their factory for the manufacture of various components of the vehicle or the chassis. The appellants assemble these in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TML and delete such items for the purpose of ordering from the appellant progressively. Accordingly, VFJ has developed a number of components of their own and deleted such items from the supply list of TML. 2.6 The agreement entered into with VFJ was simply for the transfer of technology. In terms of the agreement "OFB desires to obtain from TELCO the technical know how for producing at the Vehicle Factory, at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, the Tata Vehicle model LPTA 712/32 2.5 Ton………. and TELCO is agreeable to make the technical know how for the product available to OFB…….." Over a period of time, VFJ has developed its own source for manufacture/procurement of several parts/components required for the said motor vehicles and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation of the various parts cleared by the appellants. The Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur in their letters addressed to the appellants contended that the correct classification of the various components cleared by the appellants which did not have an engine fitted thereto, will be as parts of the vehicle under sub-heading 8708.00 and not as a chassis under sub-heading 8706.42. The Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur also referred to similar such clearances made by other competitors of the appellants like M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. in order to support their contention that the classification of the parts cleared by the appellants will be under 8708 and not 8706.42. 2.8 Pursuant to the various correspondences entered into and the pres sure from the Vehicle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets only a few selective motor parts from the appellants for which clearances are based on separate removal of parts. 2.11 The appellants despite the clarification issued by the Board continued to classify the product as parts under heading 8708 and thereafter wrote letters dated 7-9-05 and 7-11-05 to the Departmental authorities in support of their claim for classification of the products. 2.12 In the above background, the appellants were served with a show- cause notice dated 31-1-06 alleging that the correct classification of the various parts cleared by the appellants in CKD/SKD condition will be as a motor vehicle chassis under sub-heading 8706.42 and not as parts under heading 8708. The notice relied upon the fact regarding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellants and the agreement entered into would clearly show that a complete motor vehicle chassis has been cleared by the appellants in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. The Commissioner has held that the fact that there was no engine fitted at the time of clearance from the factory is not relevant since the goods have the essential character of the complete motor vehicle chassis. The Commissioner has further held that in view of the clarification issued by the Board and also in view of the correct classification of the goods under heading 8706, the other contentions raised by the appellant are not tenable. 2.17 Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29-8-06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in question as a complete article. The said Rule 2(a) reads as follows : "2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled." 6. The expression "as presented" appearing in the aforesaid Rule is of vital importance. The Rule has been borrowed from the H.S. based Customs Tariff and hence the goods as presented to Customs for assessment ....