2023 (12) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Per : P. ANJANI KUMAR These appeals are directed against the impugned order No.73/CE/CHD-II/2012 dated 28.05.2012 vide which the Adjudicating Authority has classified the Special Purpose Bullet Proof Armoured Vehicles manufactured by the appellant No.1, M/s JCBL Ltd, Unit-II (Appeal No.E/1936/2012) under CETH 8710 0000 as against the claim of the appellant under CETH 8705 9000 and imposed penalty on the appellant as well as M/s Tata Motors that is appellant No.2 (Appeal No. E/2330/2012). 2. Ms. Krati Singh assisted by Shri Aman Singh, learned Counsel for both the appellants, submits that the issue stands settled in favour of the appellants; in their own case [2019 (367) ELT 283 (Tri. Chd.)], this Bench has decided the classification o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficate. She further submits that the expression "other armoured fighting vehicle" has been used in the company of the word "tanks"; on the basis of principle of Ejusdem Generis when specific words are followed by general words, the general words are to be given a restricted meaning. She relies on the following cases: Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. - 1989 (39) ELT 498 (SC). Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. - 1990 (47) ELT 491 (SC). Manganese Ore India Ltd. - 2016 (11) TMI 543 (SC). 4. Learned Counsel also submits that the impugned order is incorrect in applying Rule 10A of Valuation Rules as the activity undertaken by the appellant is not of job-work; the body of the vehicles have been manufactured by the appell....