(S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No(s). 1754/2010, decided on January 11, 2023
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ________________ Appellant;
v.
Commissioner Central Excise, Trivandrum _____________ Respondent.
With
Civil Appeal No. 1762/2010
With
Civil Appeal No. 1755/2010
Civil Appeal No(s). 1754/2010; Civil Appeal No. 1762/2010; and Civil Appeal No. 1755/2010
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellant purchased duty paid chassis and undertakes body building activity. They disputed liability to pay Central Excise on the ground that the assembling process, after purchasing duty paid chassis did not result in manufacturing. Concurrently the authorities below rejected that contention.
2. It is argued that having regard to Note: 3 of Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (“CET Act”), the appellant cannot be characterised as a “manufacturer”.
3. Learned counsel also emphasised that upon an overall consideration of the statute, particularly, Entries 87.02 read with 87.06 and 87.07 would show that the mere activity of fabricating bodies, does not amount to manufacture.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that although Note:3 alludes to heading 87.06 of Chapter 87 of the CET Act, a close look at the latter would show that motor vehicles described in sub-heading 8702.10 and 8702.90 of heading 87.02 of Note:6 are clearly covered.
5. The relevant provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act are extracted below:
“xxxxxx
87.2 Motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of more than six persons, excluding the driver, including station wagons.
8702.10 -Motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of more than six persons, but not more than twelve persons, excluding the driver, including station wagons.
8702.90 -Other
xxxxx
xxxxx”
6. Given the structure of the statute which clearly comprehends Entry 87.02 [by specifically referring to Heading 8702.10 and 8702.90); that the activity carried on by the appellant results in a finished product i.e. useable buses, the appellant’s contention that fabrication does not amount to manufacture, does not merit consideration. This court is of the opinion that the impugned order therefore, does not call for interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
7. Learned counsel had alternatively contended that in case the Court does not interfere with the impugned order, the facility of claiming CENVAT credit be permitted. As far as CENVAT or any other input credit is concerned, it is open to the appellant to seek whatever remedy is available to it, but in accordance with law.
———
