ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is the classification of the product which the respondent, M/s. Anand Fabricators Ltd., described as “under carriage”. The Department had classified the goods under T.I. 34(III) of the old Central Excise Tariff as “Trailors”. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise had held that the goods in question were correctly classifiable under T.I. 34(III).
2. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Bombay observed that the purchasers of these goods were paying duty after completion of fabrication under T.I. 34(III) and that it would be incorrect to treat the base frames cleared by the appellants as “trailers” falling under T.I. 34(III) of the Tariff.
3. The matter was heard on 1-10-1996 when Shri N.D. Umbarkar, C.A. appeared for the respondents, M/s. Anand Fabricators Ltd. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR represented the appellants/Revenue.
4. The ld. JDR stated that the goods in question were ‘trailors’ classifiable under T.I. 34(III) of the Tariff and they have all the ingredients of the trailors. Although only base frames had been cleared from the respondent’s factory they themselves assembled and completed the manufacture of trailors at the site of the customers. He referred to the Board’s clarification under F.N. 156/2/84 CX-4, dated 20-10-1994 wherein it had been held that the product “trailors” which consisted of an axle frame fitted with tyres and suspension arrangement and breaking arrangement, where trailors, were classifiable under T.I. 34(III) of the Central Excise Tariff.
5. In reply, Shri N.D. Umbarkar, C.A. referred to the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay and stated that the suppliers had already paid under T.I. 34(III) and therefore, there was no ground for charging duty from them under the same Tariff Entry. He submitted that it was only the base frame, which was removed from their factory and they had classified the same under the T.I. 68 and had availed of the benefit of Notification No. 105/80.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods in question had been referred to as “under carriage” for mounting the oil filtration plant manufactured by M/s. Vaccum Plant. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had referred that the respondents fabricated base frames in their premises and undertook further manufacture of under carriages in the premises of M/s. Vaccum Plant & Instruments Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. with the raw material and labour of their own. There is no dispute that only the fabricated base frame was removed from the premises of the respondent to their customers. The ld. Collector (Appeals) had stated that the purchasers i.e. M/s. Vaccum Plant & Instruments Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. had paid duty on the entire value under T.I. 34(III) of the Tariff.
7. As the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the goods removed from the premises of the respondents were not Trailors as known commercially, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.
8. Trailor is a wheeled vehicle designed to be hauled by motor vehicle. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it had been defined as “any vehicle other than a side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle”. The trailor had to be called by another vehicle (refer Tribunal’s decision in the case of Karnataka Implements & Machineries Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs – 1989 (41) E.L.T. 572 (Tribunal).
9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.