TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cles on chassis falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8706. They received duty paid chassis from different customers and built body on the said chassis. They do not take credit of duty paid on the chassis. The dispute in the present appeals is relating to correct classification of the goods cleared by the appellant and their eligibility to the exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE, available during the relevant periods. The said notification provided exemption to motor vehicles for transport of goods falling under Chapter 87 of the Tariff, subject to the condition that no credit of duty paid, on chassis and other parts used in the manufacture of such vehicle, has been taken as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or transport of goods whereas Central Excise Tariff Heading 8707 only covers body of motor vehicles of Heading 8701 to 8705. As such, Note 5 readwith the provisions of Notification 6/2006-CE and 12/2012-CE will clearly indicate the eligibility of the appellant for exemption. The appellants also placed reliance on various decided cases. 3. It was also contended that the original order denied the exemption on a further ground that reversal of 5%/6% under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules is not sufficient compliance of condition under the notification which submitted that credit shall not be availed on the inputs. It is submitted that the appellants have not availed credit of duty paid on chassis and regarding other inputs which were used for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for transport of goods" or under Heading 8707 as "bodies (including caps) for the motor vehicle of Headings 8701 to 8705". In this connection, it is relevant to note the contends of Note 5 of Chapter 87, the said note is as follows :- "For the purpose of this Chapter, building a body or fabrication or mounting or fitting of structures or equipment on the chassis falling under heading 8706 shall amount to "manufacture" of a motor vehicle. 7. Admittedly, the appellants were building bodies on the chassis classified under Heading 8706. Such activity is deemed to be manufacture of a motor vehicle in terms of the above chapter note. A plain reading of the chapter note alongwith the relevant tariff headings makes it clear that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared by the appellant has to be classified as per provisions of Tariff. We note that the Tribunal while examining similar set of facts, but dealing with the claim of refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Vs. CCE, Goa reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 496 (Tri. - Mumbai) held that the independent body builders are manufacturers of body on their own account and, hence, are to be considered as manufacturers of motor vehicle. Similar view has been recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, T.N. Vs. Vinayaga Body Building Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 9. On the second issue regarding availment of credit on inputs used by the appellants we note that they have reversed cre....