Ambulance chassis classification and declared valuation upheld where seating capacity certificate and identical buyer prices supported the assessment.

Classification of ambulance chassis depended on the vehicle's seating capacity, and an undisputed registration or compliance certificate showing capacity above the relevant threshold supported treatment of the vehicle as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than twelve persons, with the corresponding chassis classification following. The valuation issue was also rejected because the same chassis was being cleared to independent buyers at the same declared price, supporting the adopted value. On those facts, the classification and valuation objections failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the chassis used for ambulance bodies was classifiable under the tariff heading applicable to motor vehicles designed for carriage of more than twelve persons or under the heading for chassis; (ii) whether the valuation demand could be sustained when the same chassis was being cleared to independent buyers at the same price.

Issue (i): Whether the chassis used for ambulance bodies was classifiable under the tariff heading applicable to motor vehicles designed for carriage of more than twelve persons or under the heading for chassis.

Analysis: The classification turned on the seating capacity of the ambulance. The evidence relied upon showed that, with the stretchers unfolded, the ambulance could carry more than twelve persons. The Board's clarification permitted seating capacity to be ascertained from the registration certificate or the compliance certificate issued by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment. As that certificate was not disputed, the vehicle was treated as falling within the category of motor vehicles carrying more than twelve persons, and the corresponding chassis classification followed.

Conclusion: The chassis was correctly classifiable under the heading applicable to the ambulance category, and the Revenue's challenge on classification failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation demand could be sustained when the same chassis was being cleared to independent buyers at the same price.

Analysis: The valuation dispute failed because the respondent was clearing the same chassis to independent buyers at the same price. On those facts, no infirmity was found in the adoption of the declared value.

Conclusion: The valuation objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained on both classification and valuation, and the Revenue's appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the unchallenged certificate establishes seating capacity above the statutory threshold, the vehicle is classified accordingly, and identical clearances to independent buyers at the same price support the declared valuation.

---