Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The Collector in the impugned order has held that he did not find any difference between the cowl and chassis and cab and platform Truck versions chassis. This is also confirmed from the Flow Chart of assessee's Assembly plant. He also referred to the fact that the assessee had sought permission of Superintendent of Central Excise in 1984 to convert certain mini Trucks to Cowls and Chassis and cleared them as such and about the Audit objection etc. He has held that it is fact that about 54% of the total production of Cowl and Chassis have been undoubtedly used by the assessee in the manufacture of Trucks cleared by them and the remaining quantity which has been cleared as 'Cowl and Chassis' has been used for conversion into passenger vehicle, ambulances and passenger vehicle with 10 passenger capacity. This point he has noted that the assessee had not seriously disputed before him. He has concluded that the same cowl and chassis have been used not only for manufacture of motor vehicles under 87.03 but for other headings also. He has held that in that view of the matter, he cannot come to a positive conclusion that the cowl and chassis have been conclusively used or predominantly used for passenger vehicles under chapter heading 87.03 as alleged in the show cause notice. He also held that he cannot come to (lie conclusion that passenger vehicle under chapter heading 87.03 is predominant use when he finds that chassis can be used for vehicles of various types and could be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8706.20, 8706.30 and 8706.40. I he re fore, he has applied Interpretative Rule 3(c) for the purpose of classifying I he goods under sub-heading 8706.40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He has held that if predominant use is taken the said cowl and chassis should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 8706.40 only and this view is supported by Rule 5 of Rules of Interpretation. He has also looked into the aspect pertaining to the expression "FOR THE VEHICLES" would mean and convey. He has held that one has to go into the aspect of designing of the chassis to determine the term "used for", in that event one has to go to the predominant use which is for the goods vehicle and therefore, no demand on merits could be made. In order to arrive at this conclusion he has looked into the technical literature produced by the appellants. He has noted from the Book Manual on Design and Application of leaf springs, SAE HSJ-738 by Society of Automotive Engineers, USA to state that variable or progressive spring is a popular type of spring particularly in the light truck models. They have the potential of improved ride quality over a wide load range. They are particularly used where a relatively low rate is desirable when the vehicle is in operation with only the driver and perhaps a light pay load, but a higher rate is required, when the vehicle is at designed loads. As in the light load range the second stage left are in-operative and as the pay load increases they come into operation. From this description he has concluded that progressive springs are introduced only where there are large fluctuations in the loads being carried or otherwise empty running of the vehicles and that has to be goods transport vehicles. Therefore, he has concluded that the use and presence on the springs of 'progressive type' would be an essential design feature for goods carriage vehicles/chassis. He has also given details of 16 vehicles wherein progressive springs have been used in the several models for transport of goods. While no such springs were being used which were particularly for the transport of persons. Therefore, he has held that he cannot accept the proposition that the introduction of the progressive spring by the assessee were with the intention to convert the chassis to a design suitable for transport of persons. They are definitely used where the fluctuations between the Curb weight and the Cross Vehicle weight is large and not used where the fluctuations are less. He has concluded that progressive spring was used by the assessee only for their transport models and not for their passenger models for example Armada Jeeps etc. at S. No. 17 to 28 of the details noted by the Collector in the order which are purely transport vehicles. He has held that the allegations made out in the show cause notice do not survive on merits regarding use of progressive springs and the use by the assessee in the other models being marketed by the assessee for passenger use as no progressive springs are used thereof. He has also noted the extracts of the book Motor Vehicle Technology and Practical Work by J. A. Dolan, which is reproduced below:

12. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri A.M. Setalvad for the assessee's company and the learned DR, Shri D.S. Negi for the Revenue.

13. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the goods in question cannot he classified as chassis fitted with engines for "motors and other vehicles principally designed for transportation of persons". It is his contention that the goods have not been principally designed for such use and only when the department discharges their burden of classification on this aspect of the matter, then can the item be classified as such. It is his contention that the department has proceeded on the basis to show that the goods have been fitted with progressive springs and shock absorbers and therefore, it satisfies the criterion of the item having been principally designed for transport of goods. He submits that there is no evidence produced by the department while there is enormous evidence in favour of the assessee both technical as well as trade and commercial understanding and also that the Collector had noted that 54% of the total production have been used for the manufacture of trucks. Therefore, it is his submission that the department have not discharged their burden on this aspect. He relies on the term "design" as laid down in English judgment French v. Champ-kin as reported in 1920 (1) KB 76, 79 which has held that "design" means adapted for, i.e. it must be originally constructed for the purpose or later altered for such purpose. He has pointed out that the entire submissions made by the assessee including the correspondence which the assessee had with the department on their bringing technical changes in the design prior to the introduction of the Tariff. This clearly indicated that it was not done with a view to evade payment as the said changes had been effected prior to the introduction of the new Tariff which laid down these criterion. He submitted that such changes were done for the technical purposes as had been explained by the appellants. He submitted that end use cannot be the criterion for classification and that there has been no such misuse in the present case. He submits that although there has been some understanding in some cases whether the goods had been cleared for the purpose of passenger vehicle, yet it was not done with an intention to evade duty, ns it is well settled that end use is not the criterion. He submits that it is well settled that unless the heading or the entry specifically so provides the end use of an article is irrelevant for the purpose of article because the articles must be classified when it is cleared (for the purpose of Excise Duty) or when it is imported (for the purpose of Customs Duty). In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India as reported in AIR 1977 SC 597, 607 : 1975 Dec. Cen-Cus 150 (SC) : ECR C 476 SC and that of Bombay High Court judgment rendered in the case of Sainet Put. Ltd. v. Union of India as . He submits that the sub-heading 8706.30 does not specifically or at all refer to the actual end use of the chassis; on the contrary if correctly read, introduces the criteria of design, not the actual end use. He submits that when the Parliament wanted to specify actual end use it always does so specifically as can be seen from the headings 37.07 and 40.11 and such is not the case with regard to sub-heading 8706.30. He points out that more than half of the very same item has been used for transport of goods. He submits that even if it is assumed for the purpose of arguments that the end use of the said vehicle is to be taken as criteria then in that case what has to be considered is the predominant use as has been held in the case Annapoorna Carbon Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh as . It is his submission that as more than half of the said goods have been put to use for transport of goods it cannot possibly be concluded that the use shows that they should be classified as for vehicles for the transport of persons. He submits that their goods have to be regarded as multi-use articles and for such circumstances the goods are required to be classified under sub-heading No. 8706.40 by applying Interpretative Rule 3(c). In this regard he also relied the judgment rendered in the case of Customs and Excise Commissioner v. Mechanical Services Ltd. as reported in 1979 (1) All E.R. 501, 511. He submits that the case had been remanded by the Tribunal as per Final Order dt. 30.4.1993 wherein the Tribunal had clearly indicated that the opinion of V.J.T.I. cannot be brushed aside and therefore, the present grievance made by the department in the appeal memo pertaining to the said opinion is not sustainable. He submits that the department did not produce any counter evidence to show that the progressive springs and chassis fitted with the shock absorbers cannot be used for transport of goods. He submits that both type of criteria of vehicles required progressive spring and shock absorber. In this regard, they had also explained in writing which has been accepted by the Collector. Such evidence being points of the facts it cannot be disputed. He pointed out that the jurisdictional Assistant Collector approached two Government bodies viz. A.R.A.I, and V.R.D.E. to give an opinion on the nature of these very cowls and chassis as to whether they were designed for transport of persons or goods neither opined that they were suitable for the transport of persons. He submits that the V.J.T.I. being an independent expert body has categorically given the opinion that the said cowl and chassis had features essential for a vehicle for the transport of goods and were not suitable for vehicles for the transport of persons. Therefore, he submits that merely because the opinion had been obtained by the assessee it is no reason to disregard it, particularly as there was no opinion or evidence to the contrary and as the Tribunal had also directed the Collector to consider the said opinion. He relied on the judgments rendered in the case of Ram Prasad v. Gold Control Administrator as and that of Shantilal v. Collector of Customs as . He also referred to uncontroverted affidavit of Mr. Parthasarthy, General Manager (R&D) that the said chassis were not designed for transport of persons and that he has not been cross-examined though made available and his statement is required to be accepted. In this regard, he relied on the following judgments:

26. As can be seen Rule 3(a) lays down that a specific entry shall be preferred to headings of general description. In the present case, the goods are not specific nor the technical evidence discloses that they were "-principally designed for transport of persons ". The evidence discloses that the goods have been predominantly used (54%) for transport of goods. Hence the heading of specific description is required to be excluded. The Rule 3(c) states when goods cannot be classified with reference to (a) or (b) they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in the numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. The heading 87.04 occurs last and as both the headings equally merit classification, the Collector adopted heading 87.04 is fully justified and that the Interpretative Rule 3(c) has been rightly applied.