TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal waives Rs.17.26 crore duty, interest, penalty in model classification dispute</h1> <h3>M/s MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. NAGPUR</h3> M/s MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. NAGPUR - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 75 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of the machine as Tractor or Front End Shovel Loader under Tariff headings.Analysis:The Applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.17,26,89,200. The dispute revolved around the classification of the model 'Arjun-Ultra 1 CE' as a Tractor or a Front End Shovel Loader under the Tariff headings. The Revenue contended that the model should be classified as a Front End Shovel Loader under sub-heading 8429 5100, while the Applicant argued for classification under sub-heading 87019090 as a Tractor, exempt from Central Excise duty. The Revenue claimed that the additional equipment attached to the model, designed by the Applicant, transformed it into a Construction Equipment, not a Tractor. The Revenue highlighted that the equipment was fitted under the supervision of the Applicant and bore the brand name 'Mahindra & Mahindra.' The Revenue emphasized the unique features of the model, such as a special grade front axle, indicating its classification as a Front End Shovel Loader.The Tribunal noted that out of the total 2978 models manufactured by the Applicant, only 405 were cleared with additional equipment by dealers. It was established that not all models classified as Tractors by the Applicant were fitted with additional equipment and cleared as dozers and loaders. This fact was undisputed by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had a prima facie case for a total waiver of dues. Therefore, the pre-deposit of dues was waived, and the recovery of the same stayed during the appeal's pendency. The stay petition was allowed, providing relief to the Applicant in the classification dispute regarding the model 'Arjun-Ultra 1 CE.'
TaxTMI 