9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quipped and designed for riot control. It is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicle is utilized for transportation of police personnel alone. A distinction has to be made between the basic manufacture of the vehicle and the body build upon it. An undisputed fact in the case is that the chassis supplied by M/s Tata Motors is similar to all the vehicles in the series 207 or others. It is the body-builders like the appellants give shape to the vehicle depending on the requirement. The design of the impugned vehicle has been conceptualized by VRDE and DRDO to suit special requirements. Understandably, in the impugned case, the vehicle is made to have so many features that help the police personnel in controlling riots. It could be that the vehicle may be helpful to carry the police personnel to a place where the riots are taking place. However, for that reason, the vehicle does not cease to be special purpose vehicle - Most of the vehicles classifiable under CETH 8705 do also require personnel to man the vehicle and use the equipment provided. Such personnel also need to be transported and for that reason, such vehicles cannot be held to be primarily designed for transportation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.6/2006. Officers of Central Excise visited the premises and found certain discrepancies in addition to the above alleged mis-classification; statements of Shri C.S. Mudgal, General Manager of the respondents and Shri J.B. Sherawat, Director, were recorded and some documents were withdrawn. On conclusion of the investigation, a show-cause notice dated 31.12.2010 was issued seeking to re-classify the Vajra Vahan under CETH 8703 3392; demanding differential duty of Rs.2,99,89,527/- along with interest and penalties. Commissioner vide OIO dated 29.03.2012 discharged the show-cause notice as far as the classification of the impugned vehicles are concerned; confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 36,691/- along with equal penalty on the company on the scrap alleged to have been clandestinely removed; he also imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- each on Shri J.B. Sehrawat, Director and Shri C.S. Mudgal, General Manager of the respondents under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Committee of Chief Commissioners have reviewed the OIO vide Order dated 18.06.2012 and directed the Commissioner to file an appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, Revenue is in appeal against the OIO. 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t functions, fall under heading 8705. He relies on Kailash Auto Builders- 2010 (257) ELT 582 (Tri. Mumbai); Automotive Coaches and Company Ltd. 2010 (252) ELT 206 (Chennai); Bhawani Loaders- 2006 (205) ELT 1017 (Tri.). He places reliance on Speed crafts Limited 2003 (151) ELT 14 (Tri. Kol.) and submits that any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible be resolved by placing reliance upon HSN, unless an express different intention is made clear in the Tariff Act itself. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The issue, whether the impugned Tata-207 Vajra Vahan built by the respondent merits classification as a specially designed vehicle falling under CETH 8705 are a vehicle principally designed for transport of passengers falling under CETH 8703, seeks our attention in the impugned case. Learned Commissioner vide the impugned order finds that Vajra Vahan, a multi role riot control vehicle, which is specially constructed and fitted with equipment to enable to perform specified functions, is classifiable under CETH 8705; it is not principally designed for transport of passengers or personnel, is correctly classifiable under CETH 8705 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner in the impugned order relies on the same principle to classify the goods under CETH 8705. 9. Now, it is to see whether the vehicle is a special purpose vehicle or meant for transportation of persons though with some additional features. From the material available on record, we find that the vehicle is specially adopted, equipped and designed for riot control. It is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicle is utilized for transportation of police personnel alone. A distinction has to be made between the basic manufacture of the vehicle and the body build upon it. An undisputed fact in the case is that the chassis supplied by M/s Tata Motors is similar to all the vehicles in the series 207 or others. It is the body-builders like the appellants give shape to the vehicle depending on the requirement. The design of the impugned vehicle has been conceptualized by VRDE and DRDO to suit special requirements. Understandably, in the impugned case, the vehicle is made to have so many features that help the police personnel in controlling riots. It could be that the vehicle may be helpful to carry the police personnel to a place where the riots are taking place. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Moreover, we have perused the certificate, for compliance to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, issued by VRDE, Ahmednagar has classified the vehicle as special purpose vehicle (multi role riot control vehicle). We also find that; accordingly, the Transport Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh has also certified the same. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act are pari materia Statutes for the purpose of determining the classification of motor vehicles. We find that the certificates issued by VRDE and the Transport Commissioner cannot be ignored unless the same are proved to be wrong or inconsistent with the provisions of the Statute. We find that no argument to the effect that the impugned certificates are wrong has been put forth by the Revenue. We find that as held in the impugned order that as the vehicle is seen to be a special purpose vehicle in the trade parlance, there is no reason as to why the classification should be done differently for the purpose of charging Central Excise duty. The opinion of DRDO which is under Government of India cannot also be ignore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
