2000 (9) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Motor Vehicle under Central Excise Tariff Act - Heading 87.02 or Heading 87.03.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the Revenue questioned the classification of a Motor Vehicle manufactured by a company under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the classification under Heading 87.02, while the Revenue claimed it should be under Heading 87.03. The Respondent argued that the appeal by Revenue was not maintainable as it introduced new grounds not raised before the Collector (Appeals). The Respondent highlighted that the approved classification lists supported their claim under Heading 87.02, and the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to lack of evidence that the vehicle was not for public transport. The Respondent also pointed out that previous adjudication had favored them, and the Revenue's reliance on Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules was deemed irrelevant for Central Excise Act classification. The Respondent cited legal precedents to support their argument that new grounds cannot be introduced at the appeal stage.

The Revenue contended that the appeal was valid, as the issue of classification was pending before the Bombay High Court, and they were elaborating on the non-public transport use of the vehicle, which was previously mentioned. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue introduced entirely new grounds in the appeal, referencing specific rules to dispute the capacity and weight of the vehicle, which was not raised earlier. The Tribunal referenced legal cases to emphasize that raising new questions in appeals is impermissible. They agreed with the Respondent's counsel that the appeal was not maintainable due to the introduction of new grounds not presented before the Collector (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal by the Revenue without delving into the merits of the classification matter.