Tribunal grants appeal, waives pre-deposit, stays proceedings. Non-filing RUDs dismissed. Appellant wins "Milk Treat" classification dispute.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing a strong prima facie case and granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings pending appeal disposal. The Tribunal found the non-filing of RUDs inconsequential to the appeal's maintenance, dismissing the Revenue's objection. The decision was communicated to the C.B.E & C., concluding the case with the appellant succeeding in the dispute over the classification of "Milk Treat" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of product "Milk Treat" under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting appeal; Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings for recovery of assessed liability; Dispute on classification under Chapter sub-heading 1905 32 11 or 1905 32 19; Preliminary objection on appeal maintenance due to non-filing of RUDs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant, a manufacturer, appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of "Milk Treat" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute arose from the classification under Chapter sub-heading 1905 32 11 by the Revenue, leading to a short-remittance of duty by the appellant.

2. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings. The Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing duty recovery, interest, and penalty based on the alleged short payment. The dispute centered on whether "Milk Treat" should be classified under sub-heading 1905 32 11 or 1905 32 19.

3. The appellant contended that the product should be classified under sub-heading 1905 32 19, citing previous orders and HSN explanatory notes. The Primary Authority classified the product under sub-heading 1905 32 11, leading to the duty demand, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The appellant's appeal was challenged on the grounds of non-filing of RUDs as required by Rule 16 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant argued that RUDs were irrelevant to the classification issue and hence not submitted.

5. The Tribunal found the non-filing of RUDs to be inconsequential to the appeal's maintenance, dismissing the Revenue's objection. Citing past decisions and stay orders, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's strong prima facie case in its favor and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings pending appeal disposal.

6. Based on the Tribunal's analysis and reasons, the appeal was granted in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the strong prima facie case presented. The Tribunal communicated its decision to the C.B.E & C. for information, concluding the case.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal nuances and procedural aspects involved in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed and the Tribunal's decision.

---