2016 (10) TMI 1136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur visited the premises of the appellant and verified records maintained therein. It was noticed that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MTT either on the chassis /trailers received from the manufacturers or undertook such activity on chassis supplied free of cost by the telecom company. The appellants followed different method of valuation in these two situations. In the first case, the appellants included value of chassis in the assessable value as they purchased chassis in their own account and discharged duty on the gross assessable value. In case where the chassis were supplied free of cost by the telecom company they have not included value of such chassis in the assessable value and the central excise duty was not paid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tting the product properly classified, the proceeding to fix correct duty liability will be improper. Admittedly, the classification of the product requires re-examination in the present case. 6. Irrespective of ownership and method of procurement of chassis by the appellants, the fact remains that the products cleared from the manufacturing unit are same. The duty determination of the final products has to be uniform in the absence of any notification providing any concessional rate of duty with or without condition. In the present case, admittedly, two types of transactions were undertaken by the appellant. The first one is normal manufacturing activity on the purchased chassis and the final product which is fully built MTT on the motor ....