TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 led to this appeal. 2. The reason for denying the benefit under Notification No. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants 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 change in Tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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 exemption was for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with this either. The appellant was not advancing an argument of seeking a particular interpretation. He was only stating that the Finance Bill itself made it clear that the change made in the Tariff Heading was without any revenue effect. When the Bill itself stated that the change was of "editorial and textual nature", the issue involved was not one of interpretation but accepting the stated intention of the Legislation. 7. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that there is no material evidence on record to show that the tempo trax ceased to be eligible for exemption as "public transport type passenger vehicle" w.e.f. 1-3-1992. Accordingly, there was no justification for the duty demand. The duty demand is therefore, unt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
