2001 (1) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assenger motor vehicles" classifiable under heading No. 8702. The appellant availed himself of the benefit under serial No. 2 with due approval of classification list by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. Subsequently show cause notice dated 10th August, 1992 was issued proposing to deny the benefit of exemption to the appellants for the period 1-3-1992 to 16-6-1992 and demand duty of about Rs. 65 lakhs. This demand was confirmed in Order-in-Original Sl. No. PN-I/C. Ex.-18/93 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune-I Division. The assessee challenged the decision in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, (Appeals), Pune. The Collector rejected the appeal. That order of the Collector has l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r". 4. The appellants contend that there is no legal basis for denying the benefit to the appellant w.e.f. 1-3-1992 on account of the change in the wording of the Tariff Heading. It is submitted that the change in the Tariff Heading w.e.f. 1-3-1992 was of no to Notification No. 162/86. That Notification gave exemption to "public transport type passenger motor vehicles" throughout the period of its existence irrespective the wording of the Tariff Heading. They have contended that the show cause notice and the impugned orders have brought no material on record to show that the Tempo Trax in question was "public transport type passenger motor vehicles" prior to 1-3-1996; but its character changed from 1-3-1992. They have also submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No change had taken place in the motor vehicle to take it out of the category of "public transport type passenger vehicle" w.e.f. 1-3-1992. The records do not give any reason or offer any explanation as to why the vehicle in question was to be treated as "public transport type passenger vehicle". As a result of the mere change in the tariff description, a vehicle which was a public transport type vehicle, cannot be treated as any other type of vehicle. The impugned order notes that the appellants did not produce any proof that the vehicle was registered by Registration Authorities as a public transport. Except for this observation we find nothing on record to show that the vehicle in question was not a "public transport type" vehicle. The ....