2007 (2) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Crane mounted upon truck which propels itself can t be compared to Mobile lifting frames on tyres & straddle carriers So classifiable under heading 8426.41 not under CTH 8426.19, 8426.12 or 8426.99 so in terms of conditions of Not. 61/94 benefit can t be given to impugned goods.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of truck mounted crane for exemption under Notification 61/94 - Classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8426.19, 8426.12, or 8426.99.

Analysis:
The issue in the present appeal revolved around the eligibility of a truck-mounted crane for exemption under Notification 61/94. The entry in question exempted goods classifiable under Heading 84.26, except those falling under CET sub-heading 8426.41, from payment of duty. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had previously held that the imported goods fell under the excluded sub-heading, making them ineligible for the exemption.

The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in the presence of the appellant. Subsequently, the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal once again. Despite notice, no one appeared for the appellants, leading the Tribunal to hear the learned SDR and review the records.

The importers initially claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8426.19 but later sought classification under 8426.12 or 8426.99. The Tribunal analyzed the classification options, ruling out 8426.99 as it only applies to goods not covered by preceding headings. The goods, being self-propelled, did not fit under 8426.99. The Tribunal also considered classification under 8426.12 for mobile lifting frames or straddle carriers but found the literature provided did not support this classification.

The Tribunal reviewed previous decisions cited by the appellants but found them inconclusive for the current case. The goods were ultimately classified under CTH 8426.41, in agreement with the authorities below. Consequently, the benefit of exemption claimed by the appellants was deemed inadmissible, leading to the upholding of the impugned order and the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the classification options and the lack of substantiation by the appellants led to the decision to classify the goods under CTH 8426.41, thereby denying the claimed exemption and upholding the previous order.