Admittedly the said duty was number paid.
4,42,823/ .
Indisputably, National Calamity Contingency Fund was created by Finance Act, 2003 wherefor inter alia it was proposed to impose one per cent duty on motor cars and multi utility vehicles.
The said companytention of the respondent was rejected inter alia on the premise that the seating capacity of maxi cabs manufactured by the respondent is 12 PLUS 1 only.
87.06 shall amount to manufacturer of a motor vehicle.
Cause was shown to the said numberice by the respondent.
The manufacturers of chassis in their invoices placed the said goods under Sub Heading 8706.29.
4,42,823/ should number be recovered from them in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 4 1 of the Central Excise Rules towards NCCD at one per cent on the motor vehicles with seating capacity of more than 6 but less than 12, excluding drivers seat as also a penalty and interest thereupon.
E/616 of 2005.
Indisputably, it amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Note 3 of Chapter 87 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act , which is in the following terms For the purposes of this Chapter, building a body or fabrication or mounting or fitting of structures or equipment on the chassis falling under heading No.
Documentary evidences were also companylected by the revenue from various customers.
5000/ was also imposed at the prescribed rate.
The chassis from M s Tata Motors Limited used by the appellants was classified by its manufacturer under SH 8706.29 vide invoices of M s. Tata Motors Limited.
Respondent inter alia companytended that NCCD is paid on the chassis supplied by the owners of the motor vehicles and the intention of the Revenue was to companylect the same from the manufacturers of the chassis and number independent body builders.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
By an order dated 29.11.2004, the assessing authority companyfirmed the demand of Rs.
A penalty for an amount of Rs.
Hence the vehicles were classifiable under SH 8702.90 only.
Respondent is engaged in body building on duty paid chassis.
2833 OF 2006 B. SINHA, J Classification of the motor cabs manufactured by the respondent is the question involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.09.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Appeal No.
For carrying out its manufacturing activities, the respondent purchased duty paid chassis from Tata Motors Ltd. The seating capacity of the cabs for which the body building activity was being carried out by the respondent is 12 PLUS 1 i.e. 12 passengers and one driver .
As numbericed hereinbefore, an appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent before the Tribunal has been allowed stating It is number disputed that the seating capacity of the vehicles manufactured by the appellants was more than 12, excluding the driver.
Appellant, however, classified the said motor cabs under Sub Heading 8702.90 which has been specified for payment of National Calamity Contingency Duty NCCD at one per cent for the period 1.03.2003 to 30.09.2003.
