M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11400 of 1995
Petitioner: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Respondent: Collector of Customs, Bombay
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11400 of 1995
Judges: S.P. Bharucha, CJI., U.C. Banerjee & Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 2002
Head Note:
EXCISE
Excise Act, 1944
Tariff entry nos. 4011.91 and 4011.99 and 4013.99 – Tyres and tubes of fork lift truck. Held that they fall under entry 4011.99 and 4013.99. Case of Ceat Ltd. (83 ELT 515) relied and followed. (Paras 4, 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. (2000 (117) E.L.T. 553) (Para 4)
2. Ceat Ltd. ( 1996 (83) E.L.T. 515) (Para 2)
2. Ceat Ltd. ( 1996 (83) E.L.T. 515) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The question to be considered in this appeal relates to the classification of tyres for fork lift trucks and tubes that are used therein. It is the case of the revenue that such tyres are classifiable under tariff entry 4011.91, which applies to “other tyres of a kind used on vehicles or equipments designed for use off the road”, and it is this classification which the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has been accepted in the present case. It is assessee’s case, on the other hand, that tyres for fork lift trucks are classifiable under tariff entry 4011.99, “other”. Similarly, the tubes are classifiable, according to the revenue, under tariff entry 4013.91 and, according to the assessee, under tariff entry 4013.99, which tariff entries are substantially similar to the tariff entries that relate to the tyres.
2. It appears that the same issue was raised before the tribunal after the judgment in the present case and the Tribunal took a different view. That was in the case of Ceat Ltd. ( 1996 (83) E.L.T. 515). The tribunal noted that documentation which had not been considered by the bench which decided the present case had been placed before it; and, having gone through such documentation, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the tyres of fork lift trucks were correctly classifiable under tariff entry 4011.99 and the tubes therefore under Tariff entry 4013.99.
3. The revenue filed a special leave petition against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ceat Ltd. special leave was refused on 4th may, 1998.
4. Thereafter, a larger bench of the tribunal considered the judgment in the present case and in Ceat Ltd. and came to the conclusion that the decision in Ceat Ltd. was correct. This was the case of Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. ( 2000 (117) E.L.T. 553).
5. Having regard to the material which has been considered by the Tribunal and its decisions in Ceat Ltd. and Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. and the dismissal of the petition for special leave to appeal in Ceat Ltd., we are of the view that the decision in Ceat Ltd. must prevail.
6. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The fort lift truck tyres shall be classified under tariff entry 4011.99 and the tubes therefore under tariff entry 4013.99.
1. The question to be considered in this appeal relates to the classification of tyres for fork lift trucks and tubes that are used therein. It is the case of the revenue that such tyres are classifiable under tariff entry 4011.91, which applies to “other tyres of a kind used on vehicles or equipments designed for use off the road”, and it is this classification which the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has been accepted in the present case. It is assessee’s case, on the other hand, that tyres for fork lift trucks are classifiable under tariff entry 4011.99, “other”. Similarly, the tubes are classifiable, according to the revenue, under tariff entry 4013.91 and, according to the assessee, under tariff entry 4013.99, which tariff entries are substantially similar to the tariff entries that relate to the tyres.
2. It appears that the same issue was raised before the tribunal after the judgment in the present case and the Tribunal took a different view. That was in the case of Ceat Ltd. ( 1996 (83) E.L.T. 515). The tribunal noted that documentation which had not been considered by the bench which decided the present case had been placed before it; and, having gone through such documentation, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the tyres of fork lift trucks were correctly classifiable under tariff entry 4011.99 and the tubes therefore under Tariff entry 4013.99.
3. The revenue filed a special leave petition against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ceat Ltd. special leave was refused on 4th may, 1998.
4. Thereafter, a larger bench of the tribunal considered the judgment in the present case and in Ceat Ltd. and came to the conclusion that the decision in Ceat Ltd. was correct. This was the case of Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. ( 2000 (117) E.L.T. 553).
5. Having regard to the material which has been considered by the Tribunal and its decisions in Ceat Ltd. and Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. and the dismissal of the petition for special leave to appeal in Ceat Ltd., we are of the view that the decision in Ceat Ltd. must prevail.
6. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The fort lift truck tyres shall be classified under tariff entry 4011.99 and the tubes therefore under tariff entry 4013.99.
7. No order as to costs.
