Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 1 December, 1999
4. The learned Advocate also submitted that the specifications provided in the ISI cannot be taken as a Bench mark as they do not manufacture tyres in accordance with ISI specifications and with the ISI mark; that they manufacture tyres in terms of ITTAC specifications, which is also an Apex body and has an equal force in determining the nature of the tyres; that moreover, a comparison of the specifications provided by the ISI and the ITTAC indicates that the tyres of PR 8 to 14 can be used in both the LCVs as well as in tractor trailers; that thus the mere fact that the ISI specifications does not indicate the PR for a tractor trailers beyond 10 cannot be a conclusive proof to infer that any tyre having a PR of more than 10 has to be a LCV tyre only; that the Supreme Court in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, 2000 (115) ELT 26 (SC) has held that if the tyres are capable of use on the road, they would be classifiable under Item 16(1)(b) of the Old Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 16 (III) relating the tyres for vehicles or equipment designed for use off the road.