Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the imported vehicle, as presented for assessment with a seating capacity of 12 and supported by later registration and fitness records showing 10 seats, was classifiable under CTH 8702 as a motor vehicle for the transport of 10 or more persons, or under CTH 8703 as a motor car.
Analysis: The direction in the earlier remand required the department to obtain expert verification of the seating capacity, but that exercise was not carried out when the vehicle remained in departmental control. The later ARAI communication did not conclusively determine the seating capacity and merely noted the original design while advising further verification. The observation regarding section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act was held to be irrelevant because the alteration had been made abroad before importation and the Indian motor vehicle law had no extra-territorial application. The vehicle had to be assessed in the form in which it was imported, and the registration certificate, fitness certificate and tourist permit issued by the transport authorities showed a seating capacity of 10.
Conclusion: The vehicle was rightly classifiable under CTH 8702 and not under CTH 8703; the impugned order was unsustainable and the classification claim of the assessee succeeded.