9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. Hathi, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue for our consideration is whether mouting on which Concrete Mixer machines are fixed, are trailers for the purpose of Item No. 34 of the old Central Excise Tariff. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda has observed that goods in question were classifiable under Item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were classified under Item 68. 2. The matter was heard on 16-8-1996 when Shri M. Haja Mohideen, JDR appeared for the Appellant-Revenue and Shri A.P. Hathi, Advocate appeared for the respondents. 3. Shri M. Haja Mohideen stated that base portion of mixers which were used for transporting mixer from one place to another was in the nature of trailers and were correctly classified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special coupling device. It moves with the vehicle to which it is attached and is dragged by that vehicle and it stops when not dragged. In the case of K.B. Dani v. State of Karnataka reported in 1979 Sales Tax Cases, Volume 44 at page 246, Karnataka High Court had observed that Tractor-trailer was a mere receptacle made to certain specifications and is mounted on wheels. 5. In the Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the lower/base portion of those products which were provided with wheels to facilitate their movement from one place to another. The whole of the machine could be towed by Motor Vehicle but the mounting was designed to keep the mixer machine on it. The lower/base portion on which the machine was placed could not be, as such, used for transportation of goods or by persons. 7. Collector (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
