1998 (1) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in terms of CBEC letter No. 45/4/61-CX. 4, dated 24-4-1961 only those trailers which conformed to the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act should be charged to duty. Referring to the language of the erstwhile Tariff Heading 34, he argued that Motor Vehicles were defined therein as of mechanic propelled vehicles. Since the trailers manufactured by the appellants were to be used with tractors, the tariff heading read with Board's instructions would indicate that duty was not leviable on trailers designed to be drawn by tractors. 3. The ld. JDR Shri S. Murugandy claimed that it is an established position that the trailers cleared by the assessees were registered with the authorities imposing the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, this ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y on the job work charges. This claim may have had merit if all the trailers manufactured were to be on job work basis. In this case, such manufacture is confined to only 70 trailers. Then also it is for the appellant to show how the belief which was in his mind was bona fide. This cannot be illustrated fully but in a situation where the advices given by the department were capable of leading a manufacturer to a certain presumption to the effect that he was not liable to pay duty, then in such situation, the claim of bona fide belief could arise. There being no such claim in this regard that argument also does not stand and therefore it has to be held that the demand is not hit by limitation. 6. The ld. Advocate does not contest the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had been approved by the department. One price list dated 26-9-1979 duly approved is on the record. We find that before the Collector this submission was made that reliance could be placed for valuation on their price list. The Collector dismissed this submission in a summary manner saying that price list had become non-est. In our opinion, the Collector was wrong in relying upon the three proforma invoices for determination of valuation. As the words suggest a proforma invoice is only a tentative offer and does not show the actual price at which same should be computed. The evidentiary value of the proforma invoice is further reduced by the affidavit filed by those persons in whose name the invoices were given. In the absence of any other ....