New classification plea cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal when it requires fresh factual inquiry.

A new classification plea under T.I. 14E could not be introduced for the first time in second appeal because it would prejudice the other side and require fresh factual inquiry. The appellate record also showed that no ground was pressed on the respondents' alleged ineligibility for exemption under Notification No. 197/82, leaving no surviving issue for consideration. On that basis, the departmental appeal was not maintainable and was rejected, with the appellate order left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could raise for the first time in second appeal the classification of the products under T.I. 14E, and whether any surviving ground remained for consideration on the respondents' entitlement to exemption.

Analysis: The classification issue under T.I. 14E had not been proposed at any earlier stage and was introduced only in the appeal. A new plea raised at a belated stage was held impermissible because it would prejudice the other side and require investigation of fresh facts. No ground was pressed or urged on the respondents' alleged ineligibility for exemption under Notification No. 197/82. In the absence of any properly raised surviving issue, the appeal could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The Department was not permitted to agitate the classification under T.I. 14E for the first time in second appeal, and the appeal was rejected as not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed at the threshold, leaving the appellate order undisturbed and the departmental appeal dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A new classification plea that was not raised at any earlier stage cannot be introduced for the first time in second appeal, especially where it would cause prejudice and require fresh factual inquiry.

---