Container Only Once Removed, But Still Exempt from Tax
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TAUNTON magistrates last week dis1 -missed sunirrionses against the Eldorado Ice Cream Co., Ltd., alleging that the proper duty had not been paid on a :container vehicle. The case was brought 'under Section.13(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) -Act, 1949, andconcerned the use on April 2 last of a platform lorry with a refrigerated container which was partially laden with ice cream.
The vehicle and the container, which was held in position by four drawpin bolts, were based at the company's depot at Cullompton, Devon, and the vehiclewas licensed only on its own unladen weight without the container.
The current licence had been taken ant on December 23; 1952, and would not expire until December 31 next. The chassis, with the container, had been, gent' to the company's London lepot in'Jannary, 1953, and-from there :o a concern at Hailsham which was responsible for the manufacture and riaintenance. of he containers. At Hailsham the container, with goods insideit, had been transferred to mother vehicle.
After repair, the first -vehicle had vturned in March to Cullompton with mother container. Apart from this one nstance of _removing the container, here was no evidence that during the ;urrency of the licence previous to the late of the summonses, the vehicle had ;ver had its container removed for any it her purpose.
The company had 84 of these idenical containers and 96 chassis, to any one of which the containers could be fitted. The cost of each vehicle was about £800 and of the containers over £1,000 each, and it was considered advisable to have a surplus of vehicles, so that maintenance and repair would not cause any of the more valuable containers also to be out of use.
The prosecution claimed the weight -of the container must be taken into account unless the defence could show not only that it was constructed to be lifted on or off the vehicle with goods inside it (as it clearly was), but also that it was "from time to time actually used for that purpose in the ordinary course of business."
It was urged that the evidence of only one removal—and that because the vehicle needed repair—was insufficient to enable the company to take advantage of this exception contained in Section 26 (2) (b) of the Act.
The court, however, accepted the contention of Mr. H. HeathcoteWilliams, Q.C., for the defence, that "in the ordinary course of business" was sufficiently wide to include the maintenance of the fleet of containers in the maximum state of -useand efficiency, and should not be given the narrow meaning of, for instance, the direct sale of its products.
After the court had announced that it was satisfied on the facts that the container came within the exception to the section and that the container was used in the ordinary course of business, the summons against the driver was withdrawn.