TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vessel . He therefore, refused to extend the benefit of the Notification. The Appellate Collector also rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The appellants at the time of hearing adopted the arguments advanced in another appeal (No. CD/1459/1984-B2 - M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.) where too the issue was the same. We have disposed of that appeal holding that the dredger imported in that case was to be considered as an ocean going vessel. The present respondents were appellants there and the present appellants were respondents. The goods involved in both the cases are same. We, therefore, do not go into all the grounds once again. The order in the earlier appeal is to be read as a part of this appeal. (Order No. 882 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and not vessels falling under Heading 8905.10. The ld. counsel also argued that Notification 262-Cus/58 does not say vessels whose primary function is ocean going, should alone be exempted. He further submitted that the construction and the capability of the vessel should be considered and also the fact that they ordered and imported an `ocean going dredger . The ld. counsel said that the dredger was capable of ocean going as proved by the fact that it was brought from Holland under its own steam. He further stated that the dredger is capable of going anywhere in the world, if required. In this context, the ld. counsel cited the judgment of the High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. U.O.I. Others - [1980 (6) E.L.T. 423]. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question before the Hon ble High Court was whether dumpers are motor vehicles within the meaning of Item 34 of Central Excise Tariff. While holding it was so, the High Court examined some aspects relevant to classification of goods. We reproduce an extract of the judgment which is relevant to the present proceedings :- [1980 (6) E.L.T. 423 (Del.) Judgment of High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors v. U.O.I.] Para-11 In Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17 (See paras 24, 25 and 26) this precise question seems to have arisen. It was argued that these vehicles, dumpers, rockers and tractors, are heavy vehicles and are unfit for plying on the road. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. They said : But that is not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and specifications of the Indian Road Congress recommended for motor vehicles which use roads. Counsel argued that these dumpers are generally called off-the highway dumpers and are used in mining and project areas and are never used on the roads. It may be that they are known as off-the highway dumpers in common parlance. But they do not cease to be dumpers. The epithet `off-the-highway used in relation to them will not take the vehicle out of the category of `motor vehicle . Para - 13 Counsel then said that the dominant or primary purpose of `off-the-highway dumper is that they are used for hauling large quantities of rocks or mineral ores over short distances and are totally unsuitable and unfit for use on roads. If the dumpe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
