1991 (12) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds objection on appeal ground, dismisses separate quantification appeal, emphasizing interconnected issues.

MAHINDRA SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The Tribunal upheld the Department's objection regarding the additional ground raised in the appeal memo without a separate application, emphasizing ... Appeal - Additional ground Issues:1. Preliminary objections raised by the Department regarding additional ground in the appeal memo and separate appeal against quantification.Analysis:The Department raised two preliminary objections during the appeal hearing. The first objection pertained to the additional ground raised in the appeal memo without a separate application, as required by Rule 23. The objection was based on the concern that raising a ground directly in the appeal memo could lead to difficulties in detection and consideration by the Bench without proper permission. The second objection highlighted the absence of a separate appeal against quantification, arguing that it should be treated as a distinct issue. However, the appellant's counsel countered by stating that Rule 23 does not mandate a separate application for raising additional grounds and that quantification is consequential to the classification issue. The counsel argued that the High Court's direction encompassed both classification and quantification, eliminating the need for a separate appeal on quantification.The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the relevant rules governing the procedure. Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules were analyzed in comparison to the corresponding rules in the CPC. These rules emphasized the importance of setting forth grounds of appeal concisely and under distinct heads, prohibiting the introduction of new cases or pleas not raised in the proceedings below without permission. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the appellants had not sought permission to introduce a new case in the appeal memo. The Tribunal referred to a previous case to support the requirement of examining additional evidence under Rule 23.Regarding the objection related to filing a separate appeal against quantification, the Tribunal found it lacking merit. The quantification issue was deemed to be intertwined with the classification matter, with the demand for duty arising as a consequence of the upheld classification. The Tribunal cited instances where the quantification was considered along with the classification appeal, indicating that a separate appeal solely for quantification was unnecessary in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Consequently, the objection concerning a separate appeal against quantification was overruled.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Department's objection regarding the additional ground raised in the appeal memo without a separate application, emphasizing the need for following the prescribed procedure under Rule 23. However, the objection regarding the requirement of a separate appeal against quantification was dismissed, considering the interconnection between classification and quantification in the case. The preliminary objections were disposed of accordingly.