TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (5) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order. When appellants filed the classification list seeking classification of the subject product as a dumper falling under T.I. 34-I(3) with the attendant lower rate of duty as per Notification No. 68/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 (as amended) it was not correct to say on their part that the dispute to be resolved was whether the said product attracts the mischief of T.I. No. 34-I(3) or T.I. 68. I do not find any justification to interfere with the reasoning of the lower authority, declining to the classify the subject product as a dumper. However, it is conceded by the lower authority that the same would be covered by T.I. 34-I(3). In this context, as pointed out in ground No. 1 of the present appeal the subject product will be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng is an expeditious and efficient manner. Accordingly, the appellants contended that the container (commonly known as body) is designed in such a fashion as to permit top loading and discharging through the rear/bottom. It was argued that the equipment manufactured by them is specifically designed to operate in the mining area for dumping water and therefore, instead of having a open type body it has got an enclosed body and the dumping action is achieved through operation of orifices controlled by water valves; that the water dumper designed and manufactured by the appellants cannot be used on highways because the equipment is not designed with suspension which would enable to move at high speed; that the equipment is fitted with very lar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umper, this will only be classified under 34-I(3) and will not attract the benefit of Notification No. 68/83, dated 1-3-1983 which gives concessional rate of duty of 10% BED and 5% special excise duty (SED). The Collector (Appeals) however on careful examination of the issues agitated before him agreed with the findings of the Asstt. Collector in so far as classification of the equipment under Tariff Item 34-I(3) was concerned, came to the conclusion that dispute between the department and the appellants was restricted only to the issue whether the appellants equipment should fall against Item No. 14 or Item No. 16 of the table annexed to Notification 68/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 for purpose of effective rate of duty. 4. Shri V. Prahbak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/16 as claimed by the appellants for purpose of levy of duty. The ld. DR submitted that looking to the use of the product namely, the equipment is for the purpose of carrying water in the mines and discharging it on the area permitting other dumpers to operate with minimum heat built up. The product was specifically designed by replacing the dumper body by a tank fitted with sprinklers. The product manufactured by the appellants, it was argued by the ld. DR does not qualify for classification as dumper and for duty against Sl. No. 15 or 16 of the table annexed to Notification No. 68/83, dated 1-3-1983 as claimed by the appellants. Reiterating the findings of the lower authorities, the ld. DR submitted that the lower authorities had correct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he highway." Now looking at the dictionary meaning of the word `Dumper' in the Chamber Dictionary of Science and Technology, we observe that dumper has been defined as "it is a wagon used in the construction of earth works for conveying excavated materials on site and dumping it where required". On examining the design, the equipment manufactured by the appellants in the context of the definition given in the Science and Technology Dictionary, we observe that the equipment manufactured by the appellants is neither used for conveying excavated materials on site and dumping it where required. In view of these facts, we hold that the equipment in dispute is not a dumper and hence its classification under T.I. 34-I(3) is correct. We agree with....