LAWS(CE)-2005-2-251

DOABA COACH BUILDERS AND ORS. Vs. CCE

Decided On February 11, 2005
Doaba Coach Builders And Ors. Appellant
V/S
CCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these 4 appeals, arising out of common Order -in -Appeal No. 163 -16/04 dated 26.3.2004, the issue involved is whether body built on motor vehicle chassis is classifiable under heading 87.02 or 87.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.

(2.) SHRI Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the fabrication of bodies on chassis for public transport of passenger motor vehicles; that they were discharging Central Excise duty on such bodies under Heading 87.02 of the Tariff in terms of the Board's instructions F. No. B -19/4/86 -TRU dated 1.7.1986 wherein it has been clarified that body built on motor vehicle chassis cleared by independent body builders are not liable to duty under Heading 87.07 and that the Excise duty is leviable on independent body builders under Heading 87.02, 87.03, and 87.04. The learned Advocate contended that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries : 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC), the Revenue cannot go against its own Circular and the Circular will be binding upon the Revenue. He, therefore, contended that no further duty is payable by them classifying the product under Heading 87.07.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue regarding classification of the body built on chassis supplied by the customer has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Body Builders. The body built or fabricated on chassis by independent body builders is classifiable under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of this there is no force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the bodies fabricated by the Appellants are chargeable to duty under Heading 87.02 of the Tariff. There is no force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the instructions issued by the Board in 1986 will be applicable for the classification of the impugned product when there is a decision initially by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals and reject the same.