ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 26-11-1981 and made herein, and the counter filed herein and the records of the respondent relating to the order in 161/1981 dated 25-3-1981 on the file of the 1st respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the Court made the following order :- The petitioner manufactures vehicles known as Dumpers. Besides the chassis, it consists of (1) Special cabin; (2) Tipping gear; and (3) Steel body. The tipping gear lowers and raises the steel body to perform the operation of dumping.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed that it is bound to pay excise duty only on the value of the chassis and that portion of the vehicle forming the cabin and the remaining portions, viz., the tipping gear and the steel body are exempt from payment of duty.

(3.) WHILE the Collector of Central Excise gave practically no reason to reject this claim of the petitioner, the Central Board rejected the claim by stating that the dumpers are intended to be used on roads to transport materials over long distances, and, therefore, the entire value of the steel body, including the chassis and cabin, should be taken into consideration. It is rightly contended by the petitioner that merely because this vehicle, which is a motor vehicle, can be used on the roads and the said vehicle (dumper) can carry loads over long distances it would not lose its character as a specialised material handling equipment and therefore, the reasoning of the Appellate authority is not correct. Tariff Item No. 34 deals with "Motor Vehicles" and the term "Motor Vehicle" is described as meaning a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. Therefore, merely because the equipment in this case, viz., Beaver Rear Dumper is capable of being put on the road and is also capable of carrying loads over long distances, it does not cease to be an equipment coming within the definition of a "Motor Vehicle". Then, the next question would be, whether by applying the explanation any portion of that motor vehicle can be excluded for the purpose of valuation. That Explanation states that where a motor vehicle is mounted, fitted or fixed with any weight-lifting or earth moving and similar specialised material handling equipment, then such equipment other than the chassis, shall not be taken into account. Even though Beaver Rear Dumper would not come within the definition of a vehicle used for weight-lifting or earth moving, it is not in dispute that it is a specialised material handling equipment. This specialised material handling equipment, viz., the tipping gear and the steel body, which forms the container for moving and handling the material, is mounted on the chassis. This mechanism is intended to move materials from one place to another and to dump them in a chosen site. Such a specialised material handling equipment is similar to earth moving machineries and, therefore, this vehicle as a whole would come within the definition of a "Motor Vehicle" and would attract the benefit of the Explanation to Tariff Item No. 34. Since the reasoning given in the order of the Government is the same as the reasoning contained in the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs and there is no justification for including the value of the steel body, which forms the container, for valuation, the orders of the respondents cannot be sustained. The tipping gear and the steel body are attached to each other and form an integral whole and would come within the meaning of the term "specialised material handling equipment". It follows that the whole portion of it, viz., the tipping gear and the steel body, should be excluded from valuation for the purpose of Tariff Item No. 34. There is no justification for dissecting this equipment into two parts, viz., tipping gear (tipping mechanism) as being eligible for exclusion and including the integral body, viz;, the steel body, forming the container. The tipping mechanism is of no use unless the steel body container is attached to it and similarly, the steel body cannot be used without the tipping mechanism. It, therefore, follows that the tipping mechanism and the steel body which are attached to each other form an integral whole and are entitled to be excluded for the purpose of valuation under Tariff Item No. 34. Hence, the orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and the petitioner is entitled to relief in respect of the excise duty paid on the value of the steel body. The writ petition, insofar as the valuation of the cabin is concerned is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.