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 with a vehicle formed by the junction or union of two, the pulling unit and the pulled unit, the first being a powered vehicle and the second being a trailer. These two, according to the appellant M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., form one unit called auto-track and that the stepney or spare wheel with spare tyre and tube is meant for use for the powered 3-wheeler. Inspite of the fact that they invoiced the spare wheel with the trailer, the spare wheel is actually meant for the whole unit, composed of two vehicles, and therefore, it makes no difference to the entitlement of the spare tyre and tube to concessional duties as an original equipment for the 3-wheeler tracting unit.

3. There is a serious fallacy in this argument. From the argument of the manufacturers themselves, the auto-track comprises two units; the pulling unit and the trailer, the two always moving and travelling together jointed more or less permanently. The unit, however, is still composed of two parts, one of which is the trailer and we cannot ignore the mechanical fact that the trailer can be uncoupled or disjointed from the 3-wheeled pulling unit. When the two parts function as one, we still have the trailer, and it is always a trailer, howsoever, it is coupled or jointed to the pulling unit; the manufacturers, Central Excise, the buying public and the users etc. acknowledge the rear component to be a trailer. Now when the stepney has to be fitted because one of the five tyres of the unit requires replacement, it becomes a part of the wheel assembly of the unit. It can be fitted to the 3-wheel pulling unit; it can just as easily be fitted to the trailer if one of the two tyres needs replacement. No one will ever know which part of the unit the stepney goes into as replacement. It can be either of the two units, and since the trailer has a wheel and tyre that can accept the stepney as replacement, the stepney or spare sheel is in reality a reserve not for just the powered 3-wheeler, but also, for the trailer behind it.

4. It is, therefore, not a mere case of passing off the spare tyre and tube for the 3-wheeler but also, for its companion trailer. In my opinion, the notifications do not permit this; the equipment must be for 3-wheelers - it may not be partly used or usable, for trailers.

5. This is to say nothing of the risk to the revenue in the recommendation by the assessee that since spare tyre and tubes are in the company of 3-wheeler, the law is satisfied. I hold that the law must be satisfied in full measure and that there should be not even the smallest opportunity for dissatisfaction to arise. But if such is the case as when the assessing officer fears that the law would not be satisfied completely, I would not be able to hold that he does wrong in denying the exemption. The spare tyre