1995 (12) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of A.D.V. Hand Cart Tyres under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Passing on the incidence of excise duty to customers.

Classification Issue:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of A.D.V. Hand Cart Tyres under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents claimed that the tyres should be classified under Heading 4011.99, while the Assistant Collector classified them under sub-heading 4011.91. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the refund claims, classifying the tyres under Heading 4011.99. The Revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that the tyres should be classified under sub-heading 4011.91. The respondents contended that the tyres fell under 4011.99, as upheld by the Collector (Appeals), emphasizing the differences between tyres used for animal-driven vehicles and off-road vehicles. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant tariff headings and explanatory notes, ultimately agreeing with the Collector (Appeals) that the A.D.V. Hand Cart Tyres should be classified under sub-heading 4011.99 as "other tyres."

Incidence of Duty Issue:
Regarding the passing on of excise duty to customers, the Revenue argued that the burden of proof lay with the respondents to show that the duty was not passed on. The respondents referenced a previous case where a similar issue was decided in their favor, demonstrating that the duty was not passed on to customers. The Tribunal noted the overlap in periods between the previous case and the present one, highlighting that the previous decision was final and binding between the parties. Based on this precedent and the evidence presented, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention and upheld that the burden of duty not being passed on to customers was proven. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.