TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he both the appeals is common, therefore, both the appeals are taken together for disposal. 1 The brief facts of the case in the present appeals is that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of body structure of Buses (i.e. fabricating and mounting on the chassis). The appellants are neither registered with the Central Excise nor with Service Tax. An intelligence and investigation were carried out by the Central Excise Preventive Officers and the statements of proprietors were obtained under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The investigating agency noticed that the appellant was engaged in the manufacturing activity of building body structures of buses on the chassis. It was contention of the department that the body building....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assification of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant under heading 87079000 and the same is not eligible for exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE under entry No. 334. Consequently, the notice proposed the demand of excise duty along with interest and imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating the show cause notice, confirmed the demand of excise duty along with demand of interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on the proprietary firm as well as on the proprietor of the proprietorship concern. 1.2 Being aggrieved by the Orders-In-Original, the appellants filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Jagrat Shah, Learned Counsel with Shri Bisan R Shah & Ms. Pooja Shah Chartered Accountant appearing on beha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ELT 489 (SC) * Caprihans India Ltd vs. CCE - 2015 (325) ELT 632 (SC) * Faze Three Limited. v C.C.E & S.T. -Silvasa 2024 (1) TMI 635 * Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd - 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) * Swapne Nagari Holiday Resort vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raigad - 2019 (21) GSTL 559 (Tri.- Mumbai) * Senor Metals Pvt Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot -2023 (7) TMI 1115-CESTAT Ahmedabad * Messrs Disha Engineers Versus CCE - Ahmedabad-I 2022 (5) TMI 476 * M/S AMCL Machinery Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs & C. Ex. 2019 (8) TMI 250-CESTAT MUMBAI * Uniworth Textiles Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2013 (288) E.LT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant is having sitting capacity of 41 passenger. Therefore, it is neither classifiable under 8703 nor 8704. On this basis itself demand is not sustainable. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, we proceed to analyse the correct position of classification as well as applicability of the notification. We find that admittedly the appellants have fabricated and mounted the bus body on the chassis supplied by their client who is not a chassis manufacturer. The said activity is amount to manufacture in terms of chapter Note 4 (said Chapter Note 4, later renumbered as 3 and finally renumbered as 5) of chapter 87 which reads as under:- "For the purpose of this Chapter, building of body or fabrication or mounting or fi tting of str....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of more than 6 persons. In the present case the bus manufactured by the appellant is a motor vehicle for transport of more than 6 persons. Therefore, the same is covered by the exemption entry Sr. No. 276. The said Notification contains the condition No. 27 which reads as under:- " it manufactured out of chassis falling under heading 8706 on which duty of Excise has been paid and no credit of duty have paid on such chassis and other inputs used in the manufacture of such vehicle has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 30 of the Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004" 4.5 As per the above condition, the chassis on which the motor vehicle is manufactured must be duty paid. In this regard a sample invoice of the chassis is scanned below :- ....