SWARAJ MAZDA LIMITED Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The short point which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to claim exemption under exemption Notification No. 462/86 -CE dated 9 December 1986 as amended from time to time in respect of the vehicle chassis manufactured by them.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the impugned order raised various points with reference to the notification in question. He submitted that the notification on the face of it merely refers to Chapter 87 but does not refer to any specific sub -heading thereunder. Being so, according to the learned Counsel, the Department was not justified in excluding the chassis which forms one of the product classifiable under the same Chapter 87 along with other types of motor vehicles. The exemption had been granted essentially as an incentive to manufacture fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicle with pay load not exceeding 4000 kg. and those falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. He further submitted that even the department itself had understood the import of the said notification to include chassis and that therefore, for earlier period in 1988, by the order dated 8th February 1988, the Assistant Collector had allowed the claim of the appellants for exemption in terms of the said notification in relation to the chassis manufactured for light commercial motor vehicle, holding that the product was classifiable under sub -heading 87.06. Apart from the fact that the Department having accepted their claim in that regard on proper adjudication of the issue involved in the matter, it was not open for the department to take contrary view for the subsequent period even in absence of any new fact being brought on record which could justify the department from the view taken earlier in the matter. He submitted that even the Explanation issued by the Government in relation to the Notification 463/86 -CE dated 9 December 1986, which was also issued on the same lines of the notification in question, discloses that the benefit under Notification No. 463/86 was also available to the chassis and there was no justification to deny the same in the case of Notification No. 462/86. Further, drawing our attention to various letters by the competent authorities, the learned Counsel submitted that the same reveal that the authorities had never distinguished between the chassis with or without the cabin and body for the purpose of granting incentive for manufacture of fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicle with lay load not exceeding 4000 kg, and falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule, apart from the fact that the similar benefit was granted to the chassis manufactured by other manufacturers including Ashok Leyland. Referring to Explanatory Notes as well as Chapter Notes of Chapter 87, learned Counsel submitted that the same do not make differentiation between the motor vehicle comprising of chassis with body mounted on it and the motor vehicle comprising of chassis without the body for the purpose of any exemption to be granted to such motor vehicles enlisted under Chapter 87 even though they may be in different variants or may be in different shapes and the Explanatory notes support the contention canvassed on behalf of the assessee. He further submitted that while understanding the scope of description of the product specified under any notification which is not qualified with any condition or any specification, the term is to be understood in generic sense and having so understood, the product in question would obviously include chassis either with body or without body mounted on it. He further submitted that even notification on the face of it clearly indicates that for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vehicle can avail the benefit thereunder or not and for the purpose of testing thereof necessary allowance to be made in relation to the body weight depending upon whether the same is with standard production cab or not. In other words, according to the counsel while ascertaining the body weight of the vehicle though the weight of the body also will have to be ascertained, it need not necessary to have body on the chassis at the time the weight of the vehicle is ascertained . To overcome the difficulty in that regard, the notification itself specified the modalities for ascertaining the weight of the vehicle in such cases. He has drawn our attention to Notification No. 463/86 and has relied upon the decisions in the matter of C.C.E., Shillong v. Wood Kraft Products Ltd. reported in : 1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC); Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. reported in (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 125; Damodar J. Malpani v. C.C.E. reported in : 2002 (146) ELT 483 (SC); The Western India Plywoods Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin reported in : 1985 (19) ELT 590 (Tribunal); Standard Pencils (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras reported in : 2002 (145) ELT 278 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Kanpur v. J.K. Charitable Trust reported in : 2008 (232) ELT 769 (SC).