AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide Order dated 25.02.2013, this Tribunal remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority to address the issues including classification and valuation of the 'car carrier trailers'. Consequently, the learned Commissioner has readjudicated the case and again confirmed the demands with interest and penalty against the appellant-assessee; imposing personal penalty on the Directors and others. Hence, the present appeals. 3. The facts of the case common to the Appeals are that the appellant are engaged in fabrication of 'car carrier trailers' which are mounted on the duty paid chassis(prime mover) supplied by their customers claiming its classification under Chapter subheading 87.04 and exemption under Notifications No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 and No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as applicable during the relevant period. On the basis of intelligence and on further investigation by the DGCEI, it came to the notice of the Department that the fabricated 'car carrier trailer' is classifiable under sub-heading 8716 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA, for short) and accordingly, the Appellant are not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification; also, the value of the fabricat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reby constituting a complete motor vehicle. Heading 8716 pertains to "trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not mechanically propelled; and parts thereof", encompassing independent, self-standing trailers that remain separate from the prime mover. ➢ The car carrier trailers are affixed to chassis, transforming them into integral motor vehicles for goods transport, thus aligning more appropriately with Heading 8704, which governs "motor vehicles for the transport of goods." ➢ Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 87, which unequivocally provides that "mounting or fitting of a structure or equipment on a chassis falling under Heading 8706 shall amount to the manufacture of a motor vehicle." Since the car carrier trailers were specifically designed to be coupled with duty-paid chassis, it does not exist as mere trailers but instead formed a composite motor vehicle, thereby warranting classification under Heading 8704 rather than Heading 8716. Additionally, Heading 8716 pertains solely to trailers designed for towing, which are not structurally integrated into a motor vehicle, whereas the trailers in the present case becomes an indispensable part of the final ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, which governs temporary registration, where a motor vehicle is registered solely as a chassis without an attached body and remains in a workshop beyond the stipulated period of one month for the purpose of body fabrication or due to unforeseen exigencies beyond the owner's control, the prescribed period of registration may be extended upon remittance of the requisite fees. Such an extension shall be subject to the discretion and approval of the registering authority or any other competent authority as prescribed. The relevant statutory provision is extracted hereinbelow 43. Temporary registration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. (2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable: Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... special permission from the relevant transport authority is required. The Appellant must ensure compliance with these technical and regulatory parameters prior to certification. ➢ The exemption from excise duty on body-building activities for trucks was first introduced in the Union Budget 199091, wherein the then Hon'ble Finance Minister, in the interest of administrative simplification, proposed that the incidence of excise duty on truck body-building activities- largely undertaken in the unorganized sector-be shifted to motor vehicle chassis. This policy shift was intended to streamline taxation and regulatory compliance while ensuring a more structured approach to duty imposition within the sector. ➢ At the time of its initial introduction, the said Note was confined in its application solely to Headings 97.01 and 87.05. However, the scope of the Note was subsequently expanded by way of amendment to encompass the entirety of Chapter 87, thereby extending its applicability to all classifications falling thereunder. ➢ The amendment was further implemented through Notification No. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002. Under Entry No. 212 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thusha Vessels & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [1999 (114) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-Bom)]. The learned Commissioner has erroneously sought to equate the Appellant's activities with the manufacture of oil tankers intended for the transportation of hazardous and explosive substances such as LPG and ethylene oxide-commodities expressly excluded from the purview of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The fabrication of such specialized tankers is akin to the construction of tractor-trailers, necessitating the integrated manufacture of both the tanker and its chassis, given the imperative structural reinforcements required to endure the dynamic forces exerted by fluid movement during acceleration and braking, considerations that are not accounted for by the original truck manufacturer. In stark contrast, the Appellant, operating in the capacity of a job-worker, exclusively fabricates trailers and containers mounted upon duty-paid truck chassis, specifically designed and deployed for the transportation of automobiles. As per Serial No. 212 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, such goods are squarely eligible for exemption at a nil rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the present case and it is hence submitted that the demand in the present proceedings is liable to be set aside. ➢ The learned Commissioner has erroneously applied Section 11A(3)(ii)(B) of the Central Excise Act instead of Section 11A(3)(ii)(C). The provisions of Sections 11A(3)(iiA) and 11A(3)(iiB) are applicable solely to assessees registered under Central Excise who have either failed to file the requisite return or have filed the return without remitting the appropriate duty. The impugned order further relies on documentary evidence, including job workers' bills and Form 3 returns filed with the Sales Tax authorities, which indicate that all invoices pertain solely to painting/fabrication labour charges, without any reference to material procurement. The Appellant submitted extensive documentation, including job work charge invoices, VAT returns, and income tax returns, demonstrating Akash Fabricators' mode of operation, all of which were overlooked by the Commissioner, who instead relied on judicial precedents that are factually distinguishable. ➢ The Appellant submits that Akash Fabricators outsourced its operations entirely, rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stipulated under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, any turnover up to August 2004 cannot be reckoned within the ambit of the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, any demand seeking to include turnover beyond the legally prescribed limitation period is ex facie unsustainable and merits exclusion from consideration. ➢ The impugned de novo order suffers from fundamental infirmities in failing to acknowledge the erroneous duplication of invoices while computing the taxable value. It is submitted that the vehicle and chassis numbers are unique identifiers corresponding to a specific vehicle, and as a matter of record, multiple vehicles cannot bear identical registration numbers. Notwithstanding the fact that the invoices accurately reflect the respective vehicle numbers, the Respondent has demonstrably failed to take cognizance of the same while arriving at the assessed value. ➢ The learned Commissioner has failed to discern the duplication of invoices, particularly in relation to invoice Nos. 131/04 dated 04.11.2004 and 139/04 dated 03.11.2004, which cumulatively account for an amount of Rs.13,90,000. Additionally, invoices bearing serial numbers 122 and 145, dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of said vehicles- (a) who is manufacturing such vehicle on a chassis supplied by a chassis manufacturer, the ownership of which remains vested in the chassis manufacturer or the sale of the vehicle so manufactured is made by such chassis manufacturer on his account; and (b) who is manufacturing chassis and using such chassis for further manufacture of such vehicle. NOTIFICATION NO.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 S. No. Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule Description of excisable goods Rate Condition No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 39 87 (i) Motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of more than six persons, excluding the driver, including station wagons; and (ii) Motor vehicles for the transport of goods (other than those specially designed for the transport of compressed or liquefied gases), falling under heading 8704; and (iii) three wheeled motor vehicles Nil 9 Condition No. 9 If manufactured out of chassis falling under heading No.87.06 on which duty of excise has been paid and no credit of duty paid on such chassis and other inputs used in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of Motor Vehicles'" 12. The appellant not only fabricates the trailer but also undertakes mounting of the said trailer on the prime mover supplied by their customers in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While according registration of such vehicles by the RTO authorities, the total design of the trailer along with prime movers are taken into account in approving/allowing the Vehicle for its movement on the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant are manufacturing only the car carrier trailers in their premises; on the contrary, they manufacture the motor vehicle for transport of goods classifiable under CSH 8704, as by a fiction in Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 87, the activity of 'mounting' of the fabricated body on the chassis results into manufacture. Besides, the prime mover and the fabricated car carrier trailer which is mounted on the fifth wheel are having common electricity source, brake system, one RTO registration affixed on the prime mover and the same number on the mounted car carrier trailer which indicate that the prime mover with mounted car carrier trailer on its fifth wheel becomes a complete m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to a particular use. Accordingly, the coupling, mounting or linking with the prime mover motor chassis will have to be according to the nature and feasibility of transport in the highways. We note that the trailer shares the weight on the rear wheels of the prime mover, in the front portion. It was noted in the impugned order that car carrier trailer manufactured by the appellant is "coupled to" fifth wheel of prime movers and not mounted on it and thus they are not involved in manufacturing of any new motor vehicle. Factually, we find that the said observation does not reflect the true nature of the integration of the trailer with the prime mover. As already noted, different types of bodies are built for transport of goods depending on the nature of goods to be transported. Some lorries have open platform for transport of steel rods, sheets etc. Others will have closed box type body for transport of cement etc. Yet another type like tank is for gases and liquids. In the present case, the transportation is for cars to be carried by these trailers. Accordingly, the design and integration is specific. We do not see that to claim the exemption under the notification the body built ....