AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (10) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short TELCO), Jamshedpur manufacture Motor Vehicle Chassis and parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For each model of motor vehicle, the parts/aggregate fitted are according to its configuration and technical specification and its prices declared to the Central Excise Department is based accordingly. The assessable value of the motor vehicle chassis for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty depends upon the fitments. Besides with special items which may mean engines with higher power/rating, gear box of special types/special steering i.e. power steering and similar/such other alternative parts/aggregates depending upon the requirement and choice of various customers. In such cases, the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "all other models except SE 1612/42, 48; SK 1612/32, 36; LPT 1612/42, 48 etc.". They admitted this lapse but attributed it to human error. They contended that the invoices correctly reflect the type of engine actually fitted with the said models at the time of clearance and the duty was paid correctly and appropriately. They contended that Engine 697NA and Gear Box GBS 40 are part and parcel of the disputed chassis as standard fitment and not as an additional item so as to attract the burden of excise duty on the purported differential value. They emphasised that since the introduction of the 1612 Models, the chassis 697NA Engines and GBS 40 Gear Boxes have always been fitted as mandatory and standard item which, according to them, is born....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and cess to the tune of Rs. 2,17,71,213.99 for the period 1-11-1994 to 30-4-1995 and imposed a total penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the appellants. Hence, the present appeals before the Tribunal. 3.Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, assails the orders impugned on the ground that the Adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the inadvertent clerical error that had crept into the concerned Price List gave room to the Revenue to slap a hefty duty demand to a little over 2 crore rupees. He submits that all the models of 1612 are fitted with GBS 40 gear box along with 697NA Engine only as this model of gear box and engine are their mandatory fitments of all 1612 models and the value of GBS 40 gear box is include....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1994 and 1-4-1995. 4.Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the orders impugned. 5.We have heard both sides and also carefully perused the relevant documents adverted to by the learned Advocate. We find that the appellants have taken the plea of inadvertent clerical error of the concerned Price List. On a close perusal of the impugned order we notice that this plea was examined in detail by the Commissioner and it was rejected by him. While rejecting this plea, the Commissioner has observed that 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box cannot be considered as normal fitment of 1612 models because 692 DI engine and GBS 30 gear box alone are the standard fitments to 1612 models as per the eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... box cannot be used with 1612 models. The said document merely specifies that the 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box are to be used with 1612 models and the Commissioner concluded that if the customer wanted a 1612 model fitted with 692DI engine and GBS 30 gear box then the appellants would prepare an identical technical specification in which the GBS 30 gear box would be shown as useable with 1612 models. We fully endorse this view of the Commissioner. We also find that the appellants have submitted a cost built-up report of 1612 model to show that 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box are part of cost of the said model. The Commissioner did not take cognizance of the said report for the reason that it does not form part of the statutory cost of ....