SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

H.R.SYIEM, M.SANTHANAM
Bajaj Auto Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Pune – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.N. Haksar, Sangeeta Gainda,J.N. Nigam

ORDER

H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The dispute that remains before us out of the original disputes is about the spare tyres and tubes. These articles according to the Central Excise are fitted as spares to the trailers. The learned counsel for the Appellant M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., however, submitted before us that the three wheeler powered vehicle with its accompanying trailer form a single unit they call auto-track; the spare wheel to which the tyre and tube are fitted, is meant for the single unit auto-track; it is not for the trailer. He argued that such spare tyres are accepted as original equipment forming part of motor vehicles in commercial and industrial practice. For example, all motor vehicles are cleared with spare tyres, and the whole assessed as one, the spare tyre being accepted as original equipment for all the vehicles, whether 2-wheeler, 3-wheeler or 4-wheeler.

2. There is no need to labour the point. A spare tyre known as the stepney always forms an original equipment cleared with all powered vehicles, and we are aware that such is the accepted practice. But the problem here is not the clearance of the spare wheel with a motor vehicle, but the clearance of the spare wheel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top