TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d withdrew some incriminating documents/records and recorded the statement of persons. After the detail investigation Appellant was issued show cause notice dated 31.12.20210 by the Joint Commissioner (Prev.), Ahmedabad-I as to why: i) The semi-trailer type of Bulker (attached to "horse‟) manufactured should not be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8716 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Bulker manufactured which are mounted on the chassis, should not be classified under Chapter Sub heading 8707 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ii) Central Excise Duty of Rs. 47,63,915/- leviable on the above both types of bulkers being manufactured and cleared, should not be demanded and recovered under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Already paid amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- under protest should not be appropriated and adjusted against the duty liability. iii) Interest should not be charged and recovered under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. iv) Penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. v) Penalty should not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard, he placed reliance on the following decision: • Warner Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Coll. Of Central Excise, Hydrabad- 1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC) • Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. Vs. Coll. Of Central Excise, Guntur - 1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC) • Bharat Commerce and Industries Vs. UOI - 1979 (4) ELT (J527) (Del) • Commissioner of Customs Vs. Krishna Petrochemicals - 2014 (304) ELT 744 (Tri -Ahmd) 2.3 He further submits that another allegation in the show cause notice was that the motor vehicle with chassis was separate entity and the Bulker manufactured by the Appellant was separate entity. Thus, it was proposed that for manufacture of the Bulker, the continued presence of the Chassis was not necessary. The Show Cause Notice proposed to demand duty on the ground that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of bulkers only and not motor vehicles. On such basis, the show cause notice proposed to classify the goods manufactured by the appellant under two different heading namely 8707 and 8716. The adjudicating authority has also classified such goods under heading 8707 of the Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) in or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 06/2006-CE was available to the Appellant. 2.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the HSN to hold that the "trailer‟ and "semitrailer‟ provided under chapter 8716 includes tanker trailers. There is no provision in HSN like note No. 5 of Chapter 87 of the Tariff thereby creating a fiction of specified activities and processes. The impugned order classifying bulkers under heading 8716 of the Tariff on the basis of HSN is therefore ex-facie illegal. 2.6 He also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider the fact that the department has accepted classification of the goods manufactured by the Appellant under chapter heading 8704 for the previous period. He also submits the issue of classification of goods manufactured by the appellant is decided in favour of the Appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-In-Appeal No. 117 to 118/2012(Ahd-I)CE/AK/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 07.10.2012 for the subsequent period of February 2011 to January 2012. 03. Shri Vinod Lukose, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing for the Revenue, while reiterating the findings of the adjudicating authority, submits that Appellant were manufacturing Bulkers separa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....examined whether the appellant has been correctly availed the benefit of exemption as per the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 by classifying their products under Chapter Heading No. 8704 or other otherwise. 4.1 It is admitted fact that the appellant‟s customers supply duty paid chassis which are used for production of Bulker which is in the nature of fabricated tanker. The said Bulker specially designed for transport of fly ash which is mounted on duty paid chassis fitted with the engine received from the customers. We find that the Appellant had classified the said goods under Chapter heading No. 8704 and also claimed the exemption benefits available as per the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Learned Adjudicating Authority per contra, disputed the claim of appellant and held that Bulker either mounted on chassis or attached to horse is appropriately classifiable under heading 8716 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and appellant are not eligible to claim the benefit of exemption under the above referred notification on merits correct classification of their products under Chapter Heading 8716 instead of 8704 as claimed by....