2006 (7) TMI 28 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise - Tractor - Auto track and semi-trailers - Vehicle in question comprise of hauling unit and semi-trailers - Identical goods were classifiable under Heading 87.01 of CET and not under Heading 84.04 ibid

Summary

Issues:
Classification of three-wheeled tractor known as Auto Track under Tariff Item 34(I) of the erstwhile Tariff vs. Chapter Heading 87.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
1. The appellants claimed classification of the product as a tractor under Tariff Item 34(II) of the erstwhile Tariff. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, classified the auto track as a motor vehicle under Tariff Item 34(I) as the term "tractor" was not defined in the erstwhile Tariff.

2. With the enactment of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the appellants sought classification under Chapter Heading 87.01, claiming exemption from duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh evidence and expert opinion, noting the new definition of tractor in the Tariff Act.

3. The appellants provided technical write-ups and sought opinions from Automotive Research Association of India and Vehicle Research and Development Establishment. VRDE clarified that the hauling unit could be considered a tractor, and the auto track a vehicle other than a conventional auto rickshaw. RTO registration and technical advices were not disclosed by the lower authorities.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the earlier Tribunal order and common parlance understanding of "tractor." The appellant argued that the new Tariff Act defined tractor differently from the erstwhile Tariff.

5. CEGAT's decision in a similar case supported classifying vehicles with fifth wheel assemblies as "truck-tractors." The appellants' vehicle, used for hauling semi-trailers, met the criteria of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87. Explanatory notes emphasized the classification of tractors and articulated vehicles.

6. Opinions from ARAI and VRDE supported classifying the vehicle as a tractor. The absence of discussion on these opinions by lower authorities indicated the vehicle was a tractor, not a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The definition in the statute should prevail over common parlance.

7. The Tribunal noted that once a vehicle conforms to the definition of tractor in Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87, it cannot be classified as an LMV. The vehicle, comprising a hauling unit and semi-trailer, was considered an articulated motor vehicle, as supported by expert opinions.

8. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the statutory definition of tractor and the specific use of the vehicle for hauling semi-trailers. The vehicle was classified as a tractor under Chapter Heading 87.01.