1995 (5) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product under Tariff Item (T.I.) 34-I(3) or T.I. 68.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 68/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Product:
The primary issue revolved around whether the product manufactured by the appellants should be classified under T.I. 34-I(3) as a dumper or under T.I. 68. The appellants argued that their product, an R-35B1 off the Highway Rear Dumper with water sprinkler, should be classified as a dumper due to its design and functionality in mining operations. They emphasized that the equipment was specifically designed for dumping water in mining areas, featuring an enclosed body and large tires unsuitable for highways.

The department, however, contended that the product did not meet the definition of a dumper as per the Chamber Dictionary of Science and Technology, which describes a dumper as a wagon used for conveying and dumping excavated materials. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) both agreed that the product did not function as a traditional dumper and should be classified under T.I. 34-I(3).

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the equipment was not used for conveying excavated materials and dumping them, thus confirming its classification under T.I. 34-I(3).

2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:
The second issue was whether the product should fall under Item No. 14 or Item No. 16 of the table annexed to Notification No. 68/83-C.E. for the purpose of effective rate of duty. The appellants claimed that their product should be assessed under Sl. No. 16, which provides a concessional rate of duty for three-axled motor vehicles other than articulated vehicles.

The department argued that the product was specifically designed with a water tank and sprinklers, making it an articulated vehicle, and thus not eligible for classification under Sl. No. 16. The Tribunal examined the dictionary definitions and concluded that the product was indeed an articulated vehicle, excluding it from the benefits of Sl. No. 16.

The Tribunal noted that no evidence was provided to show that the product was a three-axled motor vehicle other than articulated vehicles. Therefore, the product did not qualify for the concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 16. The only applicable serial number for concessional duty was Sl. No. 14, which pertains to motor vehicles other than saloon cars.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the classification of the product under T.I. 34-I(3) and its eligibility for concessional duty under Sl. No. 14 of the table annexed to Notification No. 68/83-C.E. The appeal was consequently rejected.