2010 (3) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate, for the Appellant. Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order  per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]- Heard both sides. 2. The appellants manufacture 'Mobile Lifting Frame (popularly known as 'Hammar lift' which can lift containers). The appellants have sought classification of the same under Heading 84.26. The Department has sought classification of the impugned good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rries and works trucks fitted with a crane. 15% The penalty imposed on the appellants by the original authority has been set aside by the lower appellate authority. 3. Shri R. Raghavan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the impugned goods is a combination of crane and truck/trailer used for self loading/transporting containers. By design, it is a one man operation mach....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icles proper to Chapter 87. Machines mounted on automobile chassis or lorries are also excluded from the Heading of 86.26. 5. After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the case record including the cited case law, we find that in the case of Sanghvi Movers Ltd. (cited supra), the Tribunal took note of the fact that in that case the product was primarily meant to work as a crane and its mobil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plete automobile chassis or lorry in that it comprises at least the following mechanical features: propelling engine, gear-box and controls for gear- changing, and steering and braking facilities. Such assemblies fall to be classified in Heading 87.05 as special purpose motor vehicles, whether the lifting or handling machine is simply mounted on the vehicle or forms an integral mechanical unit wit....