TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the expression "saloon car" occurring in the Notification and initiated proceedings by issuing a show cause notice threatening demand for duty at Tariff rate at Rs. 1,500/- per tyre and special excise duty at Rs. 150/- per tyre whereas the appellants actually paid a total duty of Rs. 143/- per tyre. After due process the Collector of Central Excise adjudicated the case and held that for purposes of Notification No. 20/84-C.E. a Maruti Van cannot be considered to be a saloon car. As a consequence he held that tyres supplied for vans are not eligible to concession of duty under the Notification. He passed suitable orders demanding duty on other tyres also. The Collector desisted from imposing any penalty observing that "since there could have been a genuine doubt and also considering the fact that the Notification was subsequently amended to include Van tyres also as entitled to concession, I do not think the case calls for penalty.........". The appellants, aggrieved by the order are before us in appeal. 3. Shri Ravindra Narain, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the entire demand was time-barred inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 4-9-1985 for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or mis-statement of facts could not be sustained against the appellants. Therefore, the demand, if at all, could be only for six months prior to the date of show cause notice. 6. Shri Chakraborty, the learned JDR opposing the arguments submitted that the enlarged period of limitation applied to the facts of this case. Inviting our attention to the show cause notice he submitted that as mentioned therein the appellants never stated in the classification list that they were clearing the tyres for vans. He argued that once a tax is levied the duty liability has to be decided whether it is confiscatory in nature or not. He also argued that the explanation to the amended Notification cannot be interpreted to mean that vans are saloon cars because the words "will include" enlarged the scope of the words used earlier. He submitted that these words were words of enlargement and cannot give the meaning except in "exceptional cases". The present case was not such an exception according to the JDR. He submitted that no case has been made out to warrant differing from the general practice. In this context he referred to the Law Lexicon 1982 Vol. I by T.P. Mukherjee, page 810. He also argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Referring to the explanation added to the Notification dated 16-1-1985 the learned Advocate submitted that this explanation was only by way of abundant precaution. 10. We have considered the arguments of both sides. We have considered the suggestion of Shri Chakraborty for remanding the matter to the Collector, but do not find any justification to do so. The point at issue is simply whether Maruti Van can, for the purposes of Notification No. 20/84, be considered as a saloon car. The Collector proceeded to find to the contrary for the reason that the vehicle in question is called a van and not a saloon car. It is the plea of the appellants that the dictionary meanings, evidence of some persons in trade and the view of the Motor Vehicle Departmental Authorities show that the so-called Maruti Van is a Saloon Car. We have before us the material to examine this question and there is no need for a remand. 11. As stated by both sides the term "Saloon Car" has not been defined in the Notification or in the Tariff. Therefore, we proceed to examine whether there is evidence to consider that the vehicle in question can be called a Saloon Car on the basis of the documents produced by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deal with the vehicle and their depositions are in consonance with the dictionary meaning given to "Saloon Car". Therefore, even applying the test of trade parlance the impugned order cannot be upheld as it does not contain any evidence contrary to the contents of the affidavits. 14. The appellants produced before the Collector and also before us the Registration Certificates said to pertain to two Maruti Vehicles, a car and a van Registration Authorities registered both the vehicles describing the body of each as "Saloon". We are unable to accept Shri Chakraborty's objection that Motor Vehicle Act is not relatable to Central Excise Law. As mentioned earlier there is no definition of a Saloon Car in the Tariff or in the Notification. Undoubtedly the officers of the Motor Vehicle Department have enough technical and common knowledge about motor vehicles. To arrive at a decision on the prevalent nomenclature of the product on the basis of the opinions of such officers cannot be unreasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. [1983 E.L.T. 1607 (S.C.)] observed that where the statute did not contain definition stress should be placed on how the product ....