1990 (1) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the Court made the following order :- The petitioner manufactures vehicles known as Dumpers. Besides the chassis, it consists of (1) Special cabin; (2) Tipping gear; and (3) Steel body. The tipping gear lowers and raises the steel body to perform the operation of dumping. 2. The petitioner claimed that it is bound to pay excise duty only on the value of the chassis and that portion of the vehicle forming the cabin and the remaining portions, viz., the tipping gear and the steel body are exempt from payment of duty. 3. The relevant portion of Tariff Item No. 34 at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, tipping gear and the steel body form a composite whole assessable under sub-item (4) of Tariff Item No. 34. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and that appeal was dismissed by orders dated 21-5-1979, in which it was held that the specialised material handling equipment must be similar to the weight-lifting or earth moving equipments and a dumper is not one such. It was further held that dumpers are primarily transport equipment and that they are designed to go to distant places when loaded and, therefore, dumpers are not similar to weight-lifting or earth moving equipments. 5. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision to the Government of Ind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oads to transport materials over long distances, and, therefore, the entire value of the steel body, including the chassis and cabin, should be taken into consideration. It is rightly contended by the petitioner that merely because this vehicle, which is a motor vehicle, can be used on the roads and the said vehicle (dumper) can carry loads over long distances it would not lose its character as a specialised material handling equipment and therefore, the reasoning of the Appellate authority is not correct. Tariff Item No. 34 deals with "Motor Vehicles" and the term "Motor Vehicle" is described as meaning a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. Therefore, merely because the equipment in this case, viz., Beaver Rear Dumpe....