2020 (10) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate for 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 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 87033392 and the duty was asked by arriving 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 admitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, it was pointed out to us in some registration certificate the sitting 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 accepte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....classification the vehicle in question is appropriately classifiable under Heading 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....