2005 (7) TMI 261 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Correct classification of motor vehicle for transport of 10 or more persons including driver under Heading 87.02 or 87.03.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the correct classification of a motor vehicle for the transport of 10 or more persons including the driver. While the authorities below accepted the assessee's claim of classification under Heading 87.02, the revenue contends that the vehicle should be classified under Heading 87.03. The revenue supported their stance by referring to the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988, specifically Rule 171, which sets parameters for the seating capacity of transport vehicles. The revenue argued that the dimensions of the seats in the vehicle did not meet the requirements specified in the rules for seating capacity, thus challenging the claim of the vehicle being a public transport type ten-seater. Additionally, the weight-carrying capacity of the vehicle was also brought into question based on the rules governing transport vehicles in Maharashtra.

Commissioner (Appeals) held that at the relevant time, Heading 87.02 covered motor vehicles for the transport of 10 or more persons including the driver without any additional conditions. On the other hand, Heading 87.03 excluded vehicles covered under 87.02 and was specifically for motor cars and other vehicles designed for the transport of persons. The Commissioner emphasized that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act could not be applied to the classification issue. The Commissioner found merit in the respondent's argument and rejected the revenue's appeal based on the facts and evidence favoring the respondent's classification.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no flaw in the view taken by the authorities below. The Tribunal highlighted that Heading 87.02 specifically covered vehicles meant for the transport of 10 or more persons, including the driver, while 87.03 encompassed vehicles not falling under 87.02. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that there was no requirement in Heading 87.02 to interpret the provisions in line with the Motor Vehicles Act. As the vehicle in question was intended for the transport of 10 or more persons, it fell under Heading 87.02, and Heading 87.03 applied to vehicles not covered by 87.02. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, concluding that the vehicle should be classified under Heading 87.02.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the motor vehicle under Heading 87.02 for the transport of 10 or more persons, including the driver, based on a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions and arguments presented by both parties. The decision was made considering the specific descriptions and distinctions between Heading 87.02 and 87.03, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal and affirming the classification under Heading 87.02.