[Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice-President]. - Matter called. None for the respondents. They have requested the Tribunal vide their letter dated 14th April, 1999 that the Revenue’s appeal be decided on the basis of available records. They have also filed Cross-Objection which has been assigned a number as mentioned in the preamble.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:-
The respondents herein undertake manufacture of Milk Tankers and mounted the same on the duty paid Motor Vehicle chassis. Initially, they get the same classified under Tariff Heading 86.09. RT 12 returns are also accordingly finalised. Later on, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein by the Revenue on the ground that the said commodity would fall under Tariff Heading 87.04 as Motor Vehicle. The respondent’s contention on the other hand in reply to the said Show cause notice was that the said goods would fall under 87.07 basing himself on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh reported in (P&H). The Adjudicating Officer namely Additional Collector, Central Excise dropped the show cause notice holding a demand of Rs. 30,460/- for the period 1-4-87 to 19-3-1990 as barred by time inasmuch as the show cause notice had been issued on 22nd Jan., 1991, well beyond normal period of 6 months and after duty had been paid after approval of the classification list and finalisation of RT 12 returns. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue on directions of the Board, dated 29-7-1992 exercising its power under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. The short question, therefore, before us is whether the Milk Tankers mounted on duty paid Motor Vehicle chassis would fall under Tariff Heading 87.04 as contented by the Revenue or would fall under Tariff Heading 87.07 as contended by the respondent herein on the basis of Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment mentioned above.
4. This controversy is no longer res integra in view of Supreme Court judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders [ (S.C.) = 1998 (77) ECR 437] which has held that such bodies built on duty paid Motor Vehicle chassis would fall under Tariff Heading 8707. In view thereof, no further duty liability arises because the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 would be available to the respondents and that has already been extended to the respondents on the basis of the earlier classification list 87.09. Therefore, there is no dispute about the extension of the benefit of the Notification 175/87-C.E. In view of the foregoing discussion there is no substance in Revenue’s appeal. Consequently we dismiss the same.