ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. Shri K.P. Choudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of bodies on duty paid chassis supplied by the customers. He further submitted that the Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order wrongly classified the fabrication of body building under Headings 87.02, 87.03 and 87.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He further submitted that the case of the appellants is covered by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh v. Union of India -1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P&H). The learned Counsel also argued that the fabrication of body building is classifiable under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suraj Automobiles v. CCE, Patna, Final Order Nos. E7294-295/97-B, dated 6-2-1997.
2. Heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. We find that the classification of the body building on the duty paid chassis supplied by the owner has already been settled by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh v. Union of India, supra. This view was further confirmed by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India v. Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 532. The Hon’ble High Court held that body building on duty paid chassis does not amount to manufacture of motor vehicle, hence not dutiable under Heading 87.02 or 87.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, but fall under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the assessee whose annual turnover does not exceed the limit prescribed under the exemption notification are not liable to pay excise duty or to get a licence under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal in the case of Suraj Automobiles v. CCE, Patna supra, relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Following the decision of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh, supra, we allow the appeal and the impugned order is set aside. Ordered accordingly.