2017 (2) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he customer. The appellant availing the exemption Notification No. 4/97-CE and subsequent notification, according to which the value of chassis is not included in the assessable value for charging the duty. The appellant received the chassis along with running gear. The contention of the department is that only the value of chassis is excluded from total value of the motor vehicle and not the value of the running gear. Therefore the demand was raised on the value of running gear. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals of the appellant, therefore the appellant are before us. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant's own case Ganesh Chandra Ghosh (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fabtech Engineers (supra) has been considered and accordingly held that the value of running gear should not be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicle, in terms of Notification No. 4/97-CE. The relevant para is reproduced below:- "The appellant company is a body builder, who fabricate the LPG tanks and fix the same on the chassis received from their customers and the resultant goods are that semi-trailers. There is no dispute that semi-trailers are not mechanically propelled vehicles and would be eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 4/77-C.E., even though the appellant had classified the same under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which the body is attached. It is for this reason that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukul Engineering Works (supra) has held that for the purposes of exemption under this Notification, it is not correct to make distinction between chassis and running gear, when what was supplied by the assessee to the customers was chassis and the assessee had only done the body building on the chassis. In the case of Fabtech Engineers (supra) cited by the departmental representative no reason have been given as to how the running gear is not an integral part of the chassis. The Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) in para 13 of the order has observed that chassis means a basic operating motor vehicle including engine....