9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by them were designed for use in automobiles, irrespective of end-use, or the type of the automobile in which ultimately the same were used by the customers. The design of the steel seats was the same, whether it was used in tractors, earth-movers, trucks, jeeps or vans. Seats could be used in any of these vehicles, without any alteration, and without any difficulty. 4. They referred to the Order-in-Original No. 66/84, dated 28-11-1984, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Faridabad, in the case of R.R. Industries, Faridabad, wherein, it was held that the delux seats manufactured for Ford tractors were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968. 5. They also challenged the demand on the point of limitation, and stated that in no case the extended period of limitation could be invoked. 6. It was stated that in the Classification List No. 3/85, dated 6-5-1985, they had mentioned that the driver-operator seats designed for use in automobiles, including tractors and dumpers, were exempted under the then Tariff Item No. 40, in view of the Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968. 7. The Collector, Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be fatal for enjoying the benefit of the Notification. They referred to the exemption Notification No. 81/68-C.E. and 61/86-C.E., where the expression used is designed for use in automobiles , and submitted that their steel seats were designed for use in automobiles. The Notifications could not be interpreted in such a way that the seats should have been designed for use only and exclusively in the automobiles. 10. They also pleaded that in any case placing reliance on the definition given in the Automobiles Cess Rules to interpret the Notifications under the Central Excise Law was incorrect and unsustainable. 11. It was also stated that they were availing the benefit of Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968, and thereafter under the successor Notification No. 61/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. Classification List filed as late as on 1-3-1988 was duly approved by the Assistant Collector who communicated his approval to the appellants on 6-4-1988. In other words, till 6-4-1988, the Department being fully aware of the activities of the appellants considered that they were entitled for exemption under Notification No. 91/68-C.E., and later under Notification No. 61/86, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. 19. He relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments : (a) AIR 1975 (S.C.) 17 (b) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) (c) 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (d) 1990 (45) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal) - About limitation (e) 1991 (51) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal) - About limitation. 20. We have considered the arguments made on both the sides. 21. The main point for our consideration is whether the expression automobiles , as occurring in the exemption Notifications 91/68-C.E. and 61/86-C.E., would include tractors and earth-moving equipment . 22. Under Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968, steel seats and chairs, falling under the then Item No. 40 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, and designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and air-crafts, were exempted from the duty of excise leviable thereon. 23. Under Notification No. 61/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended), steel seats and chairs, made partly or wholly of steel, falling under Heading No. 94.01, 94.02 or 94.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, if designed for use in automobiles, railway carriages and air-crafts, were exempted from the duty of excise leviable thereon. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-5-1985, driver operator seats designed for use in automobiles including trucks and dumpers exempted under Tariff Item No. 40 were shown under Column 5 of the List which covered particulars of other goods . 36. Under Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, dumpers were classifiable under Heading No. 87.04 which covers motor-vehicles for the transport of goods. 37. In the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (52) E.L.T. 32 (Mad.)], the Madras High Court with regard to dumpers had observed as under : Tariff Item No. 34 deals with motor vehicles and the term motor vehicle is described as meaning a mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads. Therefore, merely because the equipment in this case viz beaver rear dumper is capable of being put on the road and is also capable of carrying loads over long distances, it does not cease to be an equipment coming within the definition of a motor vehicle . 37.1 The High Court had added that this mechanism is intended to move materials from one place to another and to dump them in a chosen site. Such a specialised material handling equipment is similar to earth-moving machineries and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, relied upon by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, a wider meaning has been given to the expression automobiles . 47. While as per well accepted rule of interpretation, the definition of an expression given in one statute may not be applicable to another statute, we find that the expression automobile under Rule 2(b) of the Automobile Cess Rules, 1984, covered more than the motor cars. It covered not only motor cars but also trucks, buses, jeep type vehicles, vans, scooters, motor cycles, mopeds and the like. 48. In the case of MSCO Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)], the Hon ble Supreme Court have observed that the interpretation of the word industry in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not apply to the Notification granting exemption under the Customs Act. 49. The Tribunal in the case of Shri Vaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., Patna v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, Order No. 438-439/85-C, dated 7-6-1985 reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844 (Tri.), has observed that the definitions of the terms used in one enactment cannot be imported while interpreting the terms and expressions in another enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle and the expression motor vehicle and automobile are synonymous for the purposes of these notifications. 54. The Tribunal s observations in the case of Madras Radiators and Pressing Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [1989 (44) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.)], that the steel seat assembly did not qualify to become a furniture, and that the steel seats assembly for tractors were not classifiable under Item No. 40 of the Central Excise Tariff, are not relevant for the purposes of disposal of the case before us, as the point for consideration before us is the applicability of exemption notification to the steel seats, and not to the steel seat assembly. 55. Thus keeping in view the way the expression automobiles has been used in Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968 and Notification No. 61/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, along with railway carriages and aircrafts , we consider that the steel seats designed for use in automobiles, but used in tractors and earth-moving equipment, were eligible for exemption under those Notifications No. 91/68-C.E., dated 30-4-1968 and No. 61/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. 56. In the circumstances, we are not discussing the point of limitation, althou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
