2024 (7) TMI 1159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh For the Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, AGP (T) ORDER An order in original dated 24.04.2024 is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner's contentions were not taken into account. Pursuant to an audit, observations were communicated to the petitioner on 15.12.2023. For the purposes of this case, the audit obs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts and circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Schedule-II and, in particular, chapter heading 8701. He points out that the heading covers all tractors except road tractors along with semitrailers and engine capacity of more than 1800 CC. By referring to the petitioner's replies, learned counsel points out that the petitioner stated that these tractors are intende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actor. By inviting my attention to the photographs of the petitioner's tractors, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that these appear to be road tractors and not farm tractors. 4. In the petitioner's reply dated 07.03.2024, the petitioner has set out elaborate reasons for classifying the tractors as farm tractors in internal pages 3 to 6 thereof. The impugned order also sets ou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ifically replied for that point. In the copy of invoice enclosed for perusal, the cubic capacity of the Tractor not mentioned. In view of the facts and based on the copies of invoice produced their explanations are not acceptable and the proposal is confirmed." 5. The above extract discloses that the third respondent did not discuss the petitioner's explanation for classifying it as a far....