Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether haulpak rear dumps and tractor rear dumps fall within the expression "motor vehicle" in Item 34 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so as to be exigible to excise duty, and whether that expression is confined to vehicles adapted for use on public roads.
Analysis: The expression "adapted for use" was construed in the sense of being suitable or fit for use on roads. The word "road" in the tariff item was read in the context of the statute as meaning a public road, and not so widely as to include every private road or enclosed premises. A vehicle which is not suitable for use on public roads does not answer the tariff description merely because it may move on private roads in mining or project areas. The order under challenge proceeded on the broader view that all roads, including private roads, were covered and therefore did not address the essential factual question whether the vehicles were adapted for use upon public roads.
Conclusion: The vehicles are not exigible to excise duty under Item 34 unless they are shown to be adapted for use on public roads; the impugned order was unsustainable and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: For tariff purposes, "motor vehicle" in Item 34 means a mechanically propelled vehicle suitable for use on public roads, and not merely a vehicle capable of operating on private roads or in enclosed premises.