CCE Vs. MUTHUVEL LORRY BODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 46 Revenue appeals along with stay applications are taken up for final decision. In the case of CCE v. Madhar Lorry Body (E/SO/513/01 and Appeal No. E/619/2002) we find that there is a direction from Hon'ble Madras High Court to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court's order. As the issue are common in all these appeals, a common order is being passed.

(2.) After hearing Shri K. Veeraghavan, learned Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel assisted by Shri G.S. Menon, learned SDR, for the Revenue, and S/Shri V.S. Venogopalan, Saravana Sowmiyan, M. Venkataraman and N. Venkataraman, learned Counsels for the Respondents, we find that the facts in brief relevant for decision in all these cases are that the respondents in all these cases are 'body -builders' inasmuch as they were converting chassis into 'goods transport vehicles'. The dispute was with regard to the activity undertaken by the respondents and the question was whether the building of body on the chassis of transport vehicles would be covered by the levy under Section 3 of the CE Act, 1944. The respondents were discharging duty liability as per the relevant provisions of the Notification and protests were lodged by them with the proper officer. Some of the respondents took their matter in appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and obtained certain orders which they felt entitled them to the refund of duties which were paid by them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Ram Body Builders 1997 (94) ELT 422 Dated 2.9.97, in Civil Appeals Nos. 636 of 1991 with CA Nos. 504/1992, 1246/1990, 8786/1995, 4826 -33/1989, 4668/1989, 403/1994, 2768/1991, 2504 -6/1992, 2882/1987 and SLP (C) Nos. 1506 -08/1991 held that bus/truck bodies built chassis supplied by the customer is classifiable under heading 87.07 of the CET and benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/86 is available. Pursuant to this decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, refund applications have been filed by respondents with the proper officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the parties and relying upon the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted them the benefit of refund. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has come in appeal before us.

(3.) The Revenue has taken the plea that: