2000 (9) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....03 of Tariff as claimed by the Revenue. 2. Shri D.B. Shraff, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as it has been filed on completely new grounds which were not taken up before the Collector (Appeals). He submitted that in their classification lists No. 1/91-92, effective from 25-7-1991, they had claimed classification of their product as "Motor Vehicle for the transport of ten or more persons including driver" under Heading 87.02; that the Assistant Collector approved the classification lists which was reviewed by the Collector under section 35E of the Central Excise Act; that an application was filed with the Collector (Appeals) to set aside the approval; that the grounds of appeal taken b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inally contended that in any case there is no basis for applying the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules while deciding the matter of classification under Central Excise Act and particularly when Note 3 to Chapter 87 defines Public Transport Type Vehicle as the vehicle designed for the transport of 10 persons or more including the driver. In support of his contention that a new case cannot be made for the first time at appeal stage, the ld. Counsel, relied upon the following decisions. (a)      Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.). (b)      West Coast Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 526 (S.C.) (c)     ....