Tariff heading classification cannot be enlarged by a specific item; ambulance classification depends on the parent heading's wording.

Classification under the Central Excise Tariff must be determined from the wording of the parent heading, not expanded by a later specific tariff item. The commentary states that an ambulances dispute turned on whether the vehicles were principally designed to carry more than six persons, which supported Heading 87.02 rather than Heading 87.03 on the facts discussed. It also notes that a prior tribunal view against the assessee on valuation, though under Supreme Court challenge, provided a prima facie basis for insisting on pre-deposit on that issue. The result described is a partial pre-deposit, with the balance demand and related penalty stayed on compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants were required to make pre-deposit in respect of the valuation dispute concerning ambulances manufactured and cleared on chassis supplied to the body builder; (ii) Whether any pre-deposit was warranted in respect of the classification dispute between Heading 87.02 and Heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants were required to make pre-deposit in respect of the valuation dispute concerning ambulances manufactured and cleared on chassis supplied to the body builder.

Analysis: The valuation issue was already covered by a decision of the Tribunal against the applicants, though that decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court. On that basis, the dispute disclosed a prima facie case for insisting upon pre-deposit.

Conclusion: Pre-deposit was required on the valuation issue.

Issue (ii): Whether any pre-deposit was warranted in respect of the classification dispute between Heading 87.02 and Heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Heading 87.02 covered motor vehicles principally designed for transport of more than six persons, while Heading 87.03 covered motor vehicles principally designed for transport of not more than six persons. The later insertion of a specific eight-digit tariff item for ambulances under Heading 87.03 could not enlarge the scope of the heading itself. On the facts, the ambulances were designed to carry more than six persons, so the classification dispute did not justify pre-deposit of the duty demand arising from that issue.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit was warranted on the classification issue.

Final Conclusion: The applicants were directed to make a partial pre-deposit, and upon compliance the balance demand and the penalty on the second applicant were stayed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff item cannot expand the scope of the parent heading; classification must be determined by the heading description itself.

---