1996 (10) TMI 308 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Trailers or Under Carriages

In this appeal, the issue at hand is the classification of the product described as "under carriage" by M/s. Anand Fabricators Ltd. The Department had initially classified the goods under T.I. 34(III) of the old Central Excise Tariff as "Trailers." The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, had upheld this classification. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Bombay disagreed with this classification. The Collector observed that the purchasers were paying duty under T.I. 34(III) after completion of fabrication and that treating the base frames as "trailers" would be incorrect.

During the proceedings, the JDR representing the Revenue argued that the goods in question were indeed "trailers" classifiable under T.I. 34(III) of the Tariff. He pointed out that even though only base frames were cleared from the respondent's factory, the assembly and completion of the trailers took place at the customers' sites. He referred to a Board's clarification supporting this classification. On the other hand, the Respondent's representative referred to the order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, highlighting that duty had already been paid under T.I. 34(III) by the suppliers, and thus, there was no basis for charging duty under the same Tariff Entry.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the goods in question were referred to as "under carriage" for mounting an oil filtration plant. It was found that only the fabricated base frames were removed from the respondent's premises to the customers, and further manufacturing of under carriages took place at a different location. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the goods were not commercially known as trailers, as evidenced by the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Additionally, the Tribunal provided a definition of a "trailer" as a wheeled vehicle designed to be hauled by a motor vehicle, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal cited a previous decision to emphasize that a trailer must be called by another vehicle. After considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal found no fault in the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay's order and consequently dismissed the Revenue's appeal.