Karnataka Implements and Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Karnataka Implements and vs Collr. of Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 03, 1987

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3354

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/3354
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 03, 1987
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karnataka Implements and

Respondent

Collr. of Cus.

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(41)ELT572TriDel

Excerpt

1. the appellants stated that the parts imported by them were meant for a special type of trailer which had 64 tyres, tie-rod linkages and hydraulic stearing. this special heavy duty trailer had to be pulled by a tractor which had the capacity to pull a load of 100 tons or more.their trailer was, therefore, a mechanically propelled one, pleaded the appellants, and hence not covered by heading 87.13/14.2. the learned representative of the department stated that all trailers had to be pulled by another vehicle. therefore, the condition in heading 87.13/14 "not mechanically propelled" had to be interpreted to mean that the vehicle falling in that heading should not have a prime mover installed on the vehicle itself. otherwise, specific mention of "trailer" in that heading would become meaningless.3. on careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the view of the learned representative of the department. heading 87.13/14 is a specific one for trailers and it makes no distinction between ordinary trailer and heavy duty trailers. we uphold the lower orders and reject this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants stated that the parts imported by them were meant for a special type of trailer which had 64 tyres, Tie-rod linkages and Hydraulic stearing. This special heavy duty trailer had to be pulled by a tractor which had the capacity to pull a load of 100 tons or more.

Their trailer was, therefore, a mechanically propelled one, pleaded the appellants, and hence not covered by heading 87.13/14.

2. The learned representative of the department stated that all trailers had to be pulled by another vehicle. Therefore, the condition in heading 87.13/14 "not mechanically propelled" had to be interpreted to mean that the vehicle falling in that heading should not have a prime mover installed on the vehicle itself. Otherwise, specific mention of "trailer" in that heading would become meaningless.

3. On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the view of the learned representative of the department. Heading 87.13/14 is a specific one for trailers and it makes no distinction between ordinary trailer and heavy duty trailers. We uphold the lower orders and reject this appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Karnataka Implements and vs Collr. of Cus. Same Subject Customs