2003 (10) TMI 571 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product under CET Heading 8703.10 vs. 8702.10, Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand.

Classification Issue Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of a product, a Tata Sumo Ambulance, under CET Heading 8703.10 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Pune. The appellant claimed the product should be classified under CET Heading 8702.10, which covers motor vehicles designed for the transport of more than 6 but not more than 12 persons excluding the driver. The department's classification was based on the vehicle being principally designed for transporting not more than six persons excluding the driver. The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) certificate indicated a sitting capacity of 8 persons when the patient is not in a lying condition and 3 persons when the patient is lying down, supporting the department's stance. The Tribunal found the classification issue to be contentious, with no strong prima facie case for waiver, directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs within eight weeks to stay the recovery pending appeal.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit Issue Analysis:
The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 6,77,223/- was made in response to the duty demand arising from the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the classification issue was contentious and that the certificate from ARAI supported the department's classification decision. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 4 lakhs within eight weeks, failing which the stay would be vacated, and the appeal dismissed without prior notice. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the classification issue of a Tata Sumo Ambulance under different CET headings and the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand. The Tribunal found the classification dispute to be contentious, with no strong prima facie case for waiver, and directed a partial pre-deposit to stay the recovery pending appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit directive was crucial to maintain the stay on recovery and appeal dismissal.