9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the respondents, under CETH 8703 3392 and upheld the classification adopted by the respondents under CETH 8705 9000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are building bodies of the vehicles, known as Riot Control Vehicles (Vajra Vahan) on the Chases received from M/s Tata Motors and classified the same under CETH 8707 1000 availing exemption contained under Sl No.39 of Notification No.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C.S. Mudgal, General Manager of the respondents and Shri J.B. Sherawat, Director, were recorded and some documents were withdrawn.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are conceived at the stage of designing itself for special purposes and further manufactured. He submits that Vajra Vahan is not a special vehicle and is classifiable along with ambulances, which also have life carrying equipment, principally designed for carrying patients; therefore, the correct classification would be under CETH 8703 2392. Learned Authorized Representative submits photographs to show that Tata-207 is akin to van used for transporting prisoners, ambulances etc. and therefore, cannot be classified under CETH 8705, following the principle of ejusdem generis. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, assisted by Shri Shivang Puri, learned Counsels for the respondents, submits that Vajra Vahan is principally designed to perform non-transport fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 and eligible for the exemption cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the heading includes Motor breakdown lorries (trucks), motor pump vehicles, Lorries (trucks) fitted with ladders or elevator platforms, lorries used for cleaning streets, gutters, airfield runways etc., Snowploughs and snow-blowers, spraying lorries, crane lorries, mobile drilling derricks, lorries fitted with stacking mechanisms, concrete mixer lorries, mobile electric generator sets, mobile radiological units, mobile clinics, searchlight lorries, telegraphy, radio-telegraphy or radio-telephony transmitting and receiving vans, etc. The Department argues on the point that the impugned vehicle does not fall under the above group going by the principles of ejusdem generis and for these reasons, the impugned vehicle should be categorized al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nything by jeep, car, van, bus etc; there is no need to use the specialized vehicle for transportation. We find that the impugned vehicle is not meant for normal transportation and transportation of police personnel in the vehicle is incidental to the functioning of the 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 of personnel. 10. We find that this Bench in the case of JCBL Limited - 2019 (367) ELT 283 (Tri. Chan.) has classified bullet proof special purpose vehicle having holes on the roof and sides and primarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
