[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The question is not about paying a little more. Its about fairness. Why should a sedan owner driving a car costing the same, with similar fuel efficiency, and same size pay less.

100% agreed Tanveer.

The blame is that big SUV's like Audi and BMW have higher consumption and take up more space. How is that true. For 50L you get an Audi A6 or an Audi Q5. The Q5 is a compact SUV which is nowhere near as long as the bulky A6.

Both cars feature the same engine with similar economy. How is that the A6 is not charged extra but the Q5 which is supposed to be easier to drive in city because of compact dimensions is now classifed as a SUV and imposed extra tax. Same applies for X3 vs 3 series, X5 vs 5 and A4 vs Q3.

I think the target was Scorpio, Xylo, XUV, Safari, Innova, Fortuner, Endeavour which are not only huge and heavy in size but also in engine capacity yet they don't cost as much as the Audi, BMW or mercs but since they couldn't single out those SUV's in particular they came up with a blanket criteria. As a result the target SUV's fall into the category and they get a few more victims as well.

[fiat_tarun]

Originally Posted by lurker

Kizashi ground clearance is 145 mm, so it escapes.

I'm not sure if any Kizashi's are left, but although it escapes the smaller additional 3% duty, it is a CBU and will be impacted by the 15% additional duty.

I'm sure Maruti will not even think of bringing in more Kizashi's !!

[lurker]

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

I'm not sure if any Kizashi's are left, but although it escapes the smaller additional 3% duty, it is a CBU and will be impacted by the 15% additional duty.

I'm sure Maruti will not even think of bringing in more Kizashi's !!

oh yes, that has completely escaped me. Hope Maruti will develop good sense to bring in Kizashi as CKD.

[zulfi hansi]

The list of cars put up in TOI is not all that correct. We need to compile a list ourselves, I hope somebody is doing it right now. Weird are the rules of our country and make us feel even more weird by working on it, out of compulsion though.

[mxx]

Not sure what the confusion is(referring to many previous post in this thread).
If TOI report is correct,
By definition (of GOI for purpose of taxation) SUV is
1. >4m length
2. >1500cc engine capacity
3. >170mm GC
A vehicle is only categorized as an SUV if it fulfills all the 3 criteria
Even if a sedan has all 3 of the above said criteria, it will be taxed as an SUV.
But if a SUV/UV(non-GOI classic definition) does not meet any one of the above criteria -like ertiga,duster- there is no change in the tax bracket.
Body style has nothing to do with it.

source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/b...w/18741666.cms

[Equus]

Very unfair, no doubt! He just wants to ensure the govt also gets the share of the growing pie..

But PC is very smart - he will now make all vehicles > say 5 meters subject to additional excise of 3% :(

That apart, nothing for an industry that really needed some blood infusion.

[ku69rd]

Originally Posted by mxx

3. >170mm GC[/b]
A vehicle is only categorized as an SUV if it fulfills all the 3 criteria

Apart from the roads in front of 10, Janpath House am not sure how the cars can cope up with the poor quality roads. Did PC think that all cars in India can manage our roads with lesser than 170 mm GC.

This was by far one of the most dampest budget that could have been rolled out, when the market needed some free flow of money this was not what the doctor had prescribed.

[wordsworth]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

The Times of India wrongly mentioned Civic as falling into SUV category because of ground clearance. The Civic GC as stated by Honda is 170mm (from brochure and website). Only if it's greater than 170mm will it now be a SUV.

The Altis on the other hand is 175mm.

This is not correct. The notification issued for SUVs clearly states that the engines capacity has to exceed 1500cc and 4000mm in length. However, for a motor vehicle to qualify as an SUV, the ground clearance should be equal to 170 mm and above. Hence, Civic with ground clearance of 170 mm would qualify as an SUV.

Originally Posted by mxx

Not sure what the confusion is(referring to many previous post in this thread).
If TOI report is correct,
By definition (of GOI for purpose of taxation) SUV is
1. >4m length
2. >1500cc engine capacity
3. >170mm GC
A vehicle is only categorized as an SUV if it fulfills all the 3 criteria
Even if a sedan has all 3 of the above said criteria, it will be taxed as an SUV.
But if a SUV/UV(non-GOI classic definition) does not meet any one of the above criteria -like ertiga,duster- there is no change in the tax bracket.
Body style has nothing to do with it.

source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/b...w/18741666.cms

As per the Notification 12/13 - CE, a motor vehicles would qualify as an SUV if it qualifies the following criteria:

- Engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc
- Length exceeding 4000 mm
- Ground clearance of 170 mm and above

Typical SUVs like Fortuner, Scorpio, Safari, XUV 5OO would qualify as a SUV in term of the central excise notification. Further, a sedan like Altis would also qualify as an SUV since it qualifies the above criterion and hence, taxable at the higher rate of 30%.

The criterion prescribed by the Government is clearly based on mere conjuncture and not clearly thought through. Picture this, the Duster in its diesel avatar would not qualify as an SUV since its engine capacity is 1461 cc. However, the Duster petrol would qualify as an SUV under the notification since its engine capacity is 1596 cc. Hence, additional excise duty of 3.09% on the petrol Duster.

Note from Team-bhp support: Posts merged. Please use the EDIT or MULTI-QUOTE buttons instead of typing one post after another on the SAME THREAD!

[nitinbose]

Cars and SUVs are becoming common in most countries and not considered as a luxury. I seriously dont understant why in India, owning a vehicle is considered as a "crime". .

Think of the investments made by TATA, M&M etc., with the increase in price, their sales would be hit badly. Its impossible to manufacture SUVs less than 4m or the 1.2/1.5L engine limit, i.e. you technically cant call it an SUV. Also cars like Renault duster are picking up, when such a "bomb" was dropped.

Why are they trying to kill our industries and affect common man?

A person who buys CBUs is a filthy rich person and for such people taxes hikes dont matter, but here its the common man who suffers. Do we have transportation infrastructure in our country so that we dont have to use cars?

Are we only supposed to drive ambassadors and premier padminis or travel by Ox/horse carts or hand pulled carts?

I guess going forward, people are going to withdraw their investments from India, and resulting in the India in '70s/80s.

[Hiteshs77]

IMO it is lack of clarity or a lack of courage to say it or a combination of both.

What PC really wants is to discourage is sale of diesel non-goods carriers. Now incidentally, a good number of these are selling as SUVs. What would be difficult to implement is an excise hike across diesel vehicles and thus pick the easy candidate i.e. SUVs.

If the problem that he wants to solve is reduce diesel consumption, he needs to take-off the subsidy on the fuel straight away. These convoluted methods won't work and auto manufacturers would find means to circumvent.

[eyesice]

I feel that the rise in prices of SUVs maybe a ploy from the "non-SUV makers" ( Maruti, Hyundai, etc ) so that they do not lose market share to Mahindra, Tata, etc in the respective segments. With the rise of the so called Mini-SUV's, luxury hatchbacks and entry level sedans are taking a big hit which can be observed from the monthly sales reports.

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by eyesice

I feel that the rise in prices of SUVs maybe a ploy from the "non-SUV makers" ( Maruti, Hyundai, etc ) so that they do not lose market share to Mahindra, Tata, etc in the respective segments. With the rise of the so called Mini-SUV's, luxury hatchbacks and entry level sedans are taking a big hit which can be observed from the monthly sales reports.

But there is NO impact of these taxes on the compact SUV segment as the engine capacity is less than 1.5L. But when you look at the segment where XUV is present, your point does raise a validity. That's exactly where even a Verna is competing, but I doubt there is any under-the-table manipulations that would have happened.

There was always this axe about to fall on the XUVs on grounds on lesser fuel efficiency and probably they wanted to do something to implement a tax on it.

Well, am kind of surprised and confused whether a person capable of buying a 10L car is really a "common man"!

[Maky]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

100% agreed Tanveer.

The blame is that big SUV's like Audi and BMW have higher consumption and take up more space. How is that true. For 50L you get an Audi A6 or an Audi Q5. The Q5 is a compact SUV which is nowhere near as long as the bulky A6.

Both cars feature the same engine with similar economy. How is that the A6 is not charged extra but the Q5 which is supposed to be easier to drive in city because of compact dimensions is now classifed as a SUV and imposed extra tax. Same applies for X3 vs 3 series, X5 vs 5 and A4 vs Q3.

I think the target was Scorpio, Xylo, XUV, Safari, Innova, Fortuner, Endeavour which are not only huge and heavy in size but also in engine capacity yet they don't cost as much as the Audi, BMW or mercs but since they couldn't single out those SUV's in particular they came up with a blanket criteria. As a result the target SUV's fall into the category and they get a few more victims as well.

You have a good point there but I must mention, You have made comparisions between SUV and Sedan made by German Marquee but How about comparing any SUV with most 'Aaam janta' sedans.
Does the argument still hold up?

[ackyash]

Originally Posted by wordsworth

As per the Notification 12/13 - CE, a motor vehicles would qualify as an SUV if it qualifies the following criteria:

- Engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc
- Length exceeding 4000 mm
- Ground clearance of 170 mm and above

Typical SUVs like Fortuner, Scorpio, Safari, XUV 5OO would qualify as a SUV in term of the central excise notification. Further, a sedan like Altis would also qualify as an SUV since it qualifies the above criterion and hence, taxable at the higher rate of 30%.

Diesel Altis will not qualify as a SUV as its engine is 1364 cc, whereas the petrol version would qualify as a SUV.

Some of these people in the ministry are such iXXts. Really.

[nitinbose]

Originally Posted by eyesice

I feel that the rise in prices of SUVs maybe a ploy from the "non-SUV makers" ( Maruti, Hyundai, etc ) so that they do not lose market share to Mahindra, Tata, etc in the respective segments.

This could be also the case or HM might be trying their last chance to get into the India market.

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

But there is NO impact of these taxes on the compact SUV segment as the engine capacity is less than 1.5L. But when you look at the segment where XUV is present, your point does raise a validity. That's exactly where even a Verna is competing, but I doubt there is any under-the-table manipulations that would have happened.

Well, In my opinion an SUV is a vehicle which should be huge with around 2-3 liter engine, offering the road-presence, power and toughness.

Originally Posted by ackyash

Some of these people in the ministry are such iXXts. Really.

This is not something new to everyone!