TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 by the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Industrial Society v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Revenue has taken entirely new grounds in appeal before us, which is not permissible under law. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of West Cost Paper Mills, supra, that new question cannot be raised in appeals. Further, in the case of Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom, supra, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal as the benefit of Notification was denied on a ground which was never at any stage of the proceeding mentioned to the Appellants. We, therefore, agree with the ld. Advocate for the Respondents that the appeal is not maintainable as it has been filed on new grounds which were not taken before the Collector (Appeals). Thus without going into the merits of the matters, we reject the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
