1994 (7) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Decision: Watch Case Classification Dispute

The Department appealed against the Tribunal's order classifying bezels fitted with glass under the Import Policy as 'watch cases.' The Collector ... Rectification of mistake vis-a-vis Reference to High Court Issues:1. Interpretation of Import Policy regarding bezels fitted with glass.2. Admissibility of additional evidence and interpretation of Exim Policy.3. Error in Tribunal's decision-making process.Analysis:1. The Department appealed against the Tribunal's order regarding the classification of bezels fitted with glass under the Import Policy. The Deputy Collector had confiscated the goods, considering them as 'watch case' under the Negative List of the Import & Export Policy. The respondents appealed, and the Collector (Appeals) ruled in their favor, stating bezels were not complete watch cases. The Department then appealed to the Tribunal, submitting a clarification from the Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.) that bezels with glass are considered 'watch cases.' The Department argued the Tribunal should have admitted the D.G.F.T. letter as additional evidence, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jeeta Mal Ji Porwal Ji v. State of Gujarat. The Department contended the Tribunal erred in not admitting the D.G.F.T. letter, a crucial matter concerning the interpretation of the Import Policy.2. The respondents defended the Tribunal's decision, stating the Tribunal had valid reasons for classifying bezels with glass differently from complete watch cases. They argued that the Tribunal considered relevant specifications and references in its decision-making process. The respondents highlighted that the Department's claim of the Tribunal not considering the Miscellaneous Application was incorrect, as the application was for additional grounds, not new evidence. They emphasized that the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and addressed all raised points, indicating no legal issues arose from it.3. The Judge acknowledged both parties' arguments and reviewed the case record. It was found that the Tribunal had not addressed the Department's Miscellaneous Application before issuing the Final Order. The Judge concluded that the Tribunal's failure to address the application before finalizing the order was an error. The Judge suggested the Department file an application for rectification to address this error before considering any further appeals to the High Court. The Judge rejected the Department's applications for reference but allowed the option for rectification if deemed necessary.This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Import Policy concerning bezels fitted with glass, the admissibility of additional evidence, and the procedural error in the Tribunal's decision-making process. The Judge highlighted the importance of addressing all applications before final orders are passed and suggested rectification as a step to correct the identified error.