9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Appellate Tribunal; that in the case of M/s. LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 580, it was held by the Tribunal that water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis is classifiable under Heading 84.30 and not under Heading 87.05; that the said decision was followed in the case of Sparr Equipments (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1994 (73) E.LT. 53 (Tribunal). He also submitted that the drilling rig is required for digging the earth and for that purpose it has to be moved from place to place and as such the basic function of drilling rig is not a motor vehicle but drilling machine which is covered by Heading 84.30; that the chassis after receipt in their factory is modified by cutting out its len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Heading 84.30 which reads as under:- "Certain machines of this Heading (for example - Pile drivers, oil well drilling machine) are often mounted on what is in fact and essentially complete automobile chassis or lorry in that it comprises atleast following mechanical features : Propelling engine, Gear box, and Controls for gear changing, a Stearing and breaking facility. Such assemblies are classified in Heading 87.05 as Special Purpose Motor Vehicles." The learned SDR finally submitted that in view of this Explanatory Note of HSN and the fact that drilling equipment did not become integrated part of the truck chassis the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 87.05 only as Special Purpose Motor Vehicle. 4. In reply learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Explanatory Note of HSN both under Headings 84.30 and 87.05, came to the conclusion that water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle is classifiable under Heading 84.30 as the chassis cannot be separately used as a motor vehicle. The learned Consultant for the Appellants has shown that the product manufactured by M/s. LMP Precision Co. Ltd. is similar to their impugned product and merely because they have mentioned in their reply that it is not integrally connected the impugned product cannot be classified differently. Further, there is no evidence adduced by the Revenue to show that the chassis in the case of Appellants herein can be separately used as a motor vehicle. Further, the Supreme Court in Ram Body Builder's case has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
