H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The appellants, M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. claim that their matador platform truck F-305 is a motor vehicle with body. This platform truck is shown below :-

(Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to contact@manupatra.com if the vernacular matter is required.)

According to the learned counsel for M/s. Bajaj Tempo, the platform, which is built over the chassis behind the cab, is a body. There are different kinds of bodies: some are covered bodies, some are partly covered, only with sides running round the platform, and some entirely open with only the platform over the chassis. All the three types can take and contain loads securely. The Collector (Appeals) relied on the definition in the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 which provided :

Body and loading platform :

Every goods vehicle including a trailer shall be equipped with a strong platform or body so constructed as to be capable of carrying the load for which it is used without danger to other road users and such that the load can be securely packed within or fastened to the body or platform.

2. Careful reading of this would give one the meaning that a platform is a body, because both are required to be constructed to enable the vehicle to carry the load safely and without danger to other road users. The vehicle must have a body in order to carry a load and that body can be either a platform or a covered structure.

3. The learned counsel said that the Assistant Collector had accepted that the platform truck was excisable under central excise Item 34/I/(2)(i). They marketed it as a platform truck. In letter dated 10th September, 1980, the Assistant Collector said that he had visited the factory on 6.9.1980 and recorded that it had been understood that the wooden body built on the chassis could be considered as a body or a platform of motor vehicle; he, therefore, considered that the wooden platform built on the chassis made it a "motor vehicle with body" for the purposes of classification of the motor vehicles under Tariff Item 34. After this, said the learned counsel, there could be no reason for a change.

4. The Collector (Appeals) relied on the Bombay Motor Vehicles rules on which they themselves relied, but he had misinterpreted the meaning of the law.

5. The counsel read paragraph 18 of 1985(20) ELT 280; MANU/CE/0163/1985 : 1985(22) ELT 513; 1980 (23) ELT 411; paras 14 and 15 of 1981 (8) 328; paras 12 and 13 of MANU/CE/0115/1983 : 1983 (13) ELT 1113.

6. The learned counsel for the department, however, completely supported the order of the Appellate Collector. He read Item 34 of the central excise tariff. According to him, the Bombay Motor Vehicles rule can aid in understanding the meaning of the word body since the word is not defined in central excise. It will be seen from the rule that there are two structures provided for by the rules, a platform and a body. If a platform was a body, there was no need, said the counsel, to mention the body, since platform would have been enough.

7. He supported the cross-appeal saying that the Collector was wrong to speak about six months from the date of the show cause notice. In accordance with Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, account will have to be taken of the date of submission of the RT-12 that would be the relevant date.

8. The department is correct that a body is different from a platform and the understanding in knowledgeable circles is also thus. The Motor Vehicles Rule provides for a body and a loading platform and it is clear that the law recognises that a loading platform is not a body. The rule requires a vehicle to be equipped with a strong platform or body so constructed to be capable of carrying the load for which it is used without danger to other road users. There are loads for which a flat open platform will be enough and loads can be carried on it with complete safety; but there are loads which require sides to be provided all round the ed