TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta, Shri A. K. Saini, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant received duty paid chassis from M/s SML ISUZU Ltd. for the purpose of fabrication of Ambulances falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riving the admissible value in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Considering the fact that in the appellant's own case for the earlier period reported in 2016 (337) ELT 441 (Tri.-Chan.), this Tribunal observed as under:- "8. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in dispute can carry more th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itting capacity is indicated as 4. With regard to this, learned counsel for the appellant undertook at bar that none of these 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 87.02 of CETA. The appellants are liable to pay duty accordingly. 12. On the issue of valuation, as this Tribunal has held against the appellant in the case of Audi Automobiles (supra), wherein it has been held that valuation to be made under Rule 10A of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the value arrived at under Rule 10A ....