TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbishing old Ambulances did not amount to manufacture. 3. Further, on scrutiny of ER-1 for the period January, 2010 to March, 2010 it was seen that the appellants had manufactured and cleared 56 Ambulances having assessable value of Rs. 2,21,62,452/- under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 as amended and paid duty under protest on the said Ambulances. The said Ambulances were cleared under Chapter Heading No. 8703 2210. Revenue felt that the correct classification should be under 8703 3392. It was also the allegation of the Revenue that the appellants had not included the cost of the chassis in the assessable value of the Ambulances. Further, for the purpose of calculation of NCCD, the appellants had included the cost of the chassis in the assessable value whereas for the calculation of the excise duty they had not included the cost of chassis in the assessable value. A show cause notice was accordingly issued on 07.01.2011, which was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner. In his adjudication order, the Ld. Commissioner held that the processes of refurbishing of Ambulances amounted to manufacture and held that the goods are classifiable under chapter heading No. 8703 3392. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV 2016 (337) ELT 441 (Tri. Chandigarh). He also relied on the case laws of CCE, Bombay-I Vs. Rubi Coach Builders Ltd. 1999 (112) ELT 607 (Tribunal) and CCE, Pune Vs. Ashiyana Autobodies Ltd. 2016 (344) ELt 1028 (Tri. Mumbai). 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of the adjudicating authority. 6. Heard the rival submissions and examined the record. 7. We find that on the first issue of whether the renovation of 14 old and used Ambulances amounts to manufacture, the appellants have showed that the vehicles which they have received were in the nature of the Ambulances ab initio as is evident from the certificate of the registration taken by the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner in his order that the vehicles which the noticee received could not be used as Ambulance is patently erroneous. We also find that after the process of refurbishing/renovation, vehicle remained as an Ambulance only and did not undergo any transformation to a new product. The nature and use of the vehicle, in other words the basic character of the vehicle, remained same as before the process ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es remained as motor vehicles only, except some changes and due to these changes original identity of the product in terms of Central Excise provisions does not change. We find that revenue in their appeal mainly emphasized on chapter Note 3 of Chapter 87 which is reproduced below : - for the purpose of Heading Nos. 8701 to 8705 building a body or fabrication or mounting or fitting of structures or equipment on the chasis would amount to manufacture of motor vehicle The Revenue contended that any activity of fabrication if undertaken on the chasis of old vehicle and also the activity of mounting or fitting of any equipment on such chasis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle. Each such activity described in the said Chapter Note would independently qualify for being manufacturing process attracting central excise levy on the resultant motor vehicles in terms of said Chapter Note. As per the fact of the present case it is undisputed that in the activity of customization of the car, the respondent has only made partial changes in the completely built up vehicle therefore they have neither fabricated any body/equipment nor mounted the same on chasis. Therefore the activity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese vehicles which have been indicated in their registration certificate having certificate of 4 persons have been manufactured by the appellant before us. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue is not accepted in the absence of contrary evidence. We further, find that in the case of TELCO (supra), this Tribunal came to an occasion to decide classification, it has been observed by this Tribunal as under :- 2. It is not in dispute that the impugned vehicle can carry 8 persons when the patient is not carried in lying condition and it can carry 4 persons when the patient is carried in lying condition. Basically, the departments case is that since it can carry only 4 persons when the patient is carried on a stretcher and the vehicle is designed for such use, it would merit classification under sub-heading 8703.90 and not under sub-heading 8702.10. 11. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of TELCO (supra), and discussion hereinabove, we hold that on the issue of classification the vehicle in question is appropriately classifiable under Heading 87.02 of CETA. The appellants are liable to pay duty accordingly. Following the above judgment of this Tribunal, we hold....