GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 24-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. ETC. 
v: 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 24, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR 
AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Section 36(2)-ltems 16(3) and 34 
A 
B 
of the Central Excise Tariff-Whether tyres of the size 1800 and above 
manufactured for fitment to heavy moving vehicles are exigible to excise duty C 
as "tyres for motor vehicles"-Held : such tyres meant for heavy moving 
vehicles like dumpers and earth movers-Do not fall within the definition of 
"motor vehicle" as per item 34 of the Central Excise Tariff-Covered by item 
16(3) "all other tyres"-Not exigible to excise duty as "tyres for motor vehicles" 
Claim for lower rates of duty upheld-However, the question of entitlement 
to refund directed to be decided by the Assistant Collector in accordance with D 
the deiision on Maf at/a/ Industries Ltd. 
The appellant company had been manufacturing tyres of the size of 
1800 and above for fitment to heavy moving vehicles such as· dumpers and 
earth movers. Excise duty was collected from the appellants for such tyres E 
treating them as tyres for motor vehicles. Appellant made claim for refund 
of the excess amount with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise on the 
ground that such tyres do not fall within the category of "tyres for motor 
vehicles" as envisaged by item No. 16 of the Central Excises, 1st schedule 
of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hence the proper classifica-
tion of such tyres should be under residuary sub-item 3 "all other tyres". 
But the claim was rejected. However, on appeal, the appellate Collector 
reversed the orders of the Assistant Collector upholding the contention of 
the appellant. But the Central Government in exercise of the revisional 
power under section 36(2) of the Act set aside the order of the Appellate 
F 
Collector. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. A close reading of the definition "motor Vehicle" in item 
34 of the Central Excise Tariff, schedule 11-B of the Central Excises and 
Salt Act, 1944 reveals that the striking ingredient thereof is that it should H 
445 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A have been "adapted for the use upon roads". Merely because the areas on 
which such heavy movers traverse mightsometimes include roads also is 
not enough to hold that they· were "adapted for use upon roads". Such use 
of the heavy mover on the road may only be ancilliary or incidental to the 
main use of it. Emphasis in the definition must be on the words "use upon 
B roads" as those words would denote the principal or dominant use and not 
where it may move incidentally. [ 450~0-E] 
Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, [1994] Suppl. 2 SCC 335, 
distinguished. 
C 
Maddox v. Storer, (1962) 1 All E.R. 831 and Bourne v. Norwich 
Crematorium Ltd., (1967) 2 All E.R. 576, referred to. 
1.2. The tyres of the size 1800 and above would fall within the 
residuary sub-item 3 in item 16 of the Central Excise Tariff during the 
relevant period. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Central 
D Government in revision is set aside. However, the question of entitlement 
to refund shall be decided by the Assistant Collector concerned in accord-
ance with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Maf at/al In-
. dustries case and the Format prepared pursuant to the directions given 
E 
F 
therein. [~51-A-B] 
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 9 Scale 457 = [1996) 
Supp. 10 SCR 585, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 640 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.79 of the Ministry of 
Finance Govt. of India, in Order in R. No. 88 of 1979. 
With 
G 
SLP (C) No. 6T36n9 and TC (C) No. 30/89. 
Ravinder Narain, Ms. Amrita Mitra, Amit Bansal for JBD & Co. for 
the Appellants. 
Joseph Vallapally, T.V. Ratnam and C.V.S. Rao for the Respon-
H dents. 
GOODYEAR INDIA Lill. v. U.0.1. [THOMAS,J.] 
447 
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. The question involved in this appeal is whether tyres 
of the size 1800 and above manufactured for fitment to heavy moving 
vehicles such as dumpers and earth movers are exigible to excise duty 
A 
as "tyres for motor vehicles". This appeal by special leave is in challenge B 
of the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of their 
revisional powers under section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt 
Act 1944 (for short 'the Act') decided
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.