1999 (10) TMI 405 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal restores appeal despite missing documents, rejects new argument request

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus ALFRED HERBERT INDIA LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus ALFRED HERBERT INDIA LTD. - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 474 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Restoration of appeal dismissed under Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.2. Consideration of appeal without production of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.3. Classification dispute regarding '2 Roll Mills for mixing Rubber and Plastics.'4. Request for remand for de novo consideration of classification.5. Applicability of legal precedents on considering new case in appeal.Issue 1: Restoration of appeal dismissed under Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.The judgment pertains to a restoration application filed by the Revenue seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Commissioner failed to produce the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal despite multiple opportunities, leading to the summary dismissal of the appeal. The Commissioner contended that the appeal should not have been dismissed solely for non-production of documents, citing Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Tribunal, after considering the submission and the subsequent production of documents, decided to restore the appeal for further consideration.Issue 2: Consideration of appeal without production of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.The Commissioner argued that the appeal should not be summarily dismissed for non-production of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, as the Tribunal could accept a memorandum of appeal without these documents under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. However, the Tribunal noted that for proper adjudication, the impugned order must be produced. Despite this, the appeal was restored for consideration upon the submission of the required documents.Issue 3: Classification dispute regarding '2 Roll Mills for mixing Rubber and Plastics.'The appeal involved a classification dispute concerning '2 Roll Mills for mixing Rubber and Plastics.' The Commissioner (Appeals) had classified the item under Chapter Sub-Heading 8477.00, rejecting the party's claim for classification under sub-heading 8420. The appeal memorandum sought classification under Heading 8479.00. The Revenue accepted both contending Chapter headings but requested classification under a new heading, which was not permissible as per legal precedents.Issue 4: Request for remand for de novo consideration of classification.The Revenue requested a remand for de novo consideration to address their plea for classification under a different heading. However, the Tribunal, citing legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court, held that presenting a new case in appeal was impermissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the factual matrix should be set out before the authorities below, and considering a new case in appeal was against established legal principles. Consequently, the plea for remand was rejected.Issue 5: Applicability of legal precedents on considering new case in appeal.The Tribunal relied on legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court and previous Tribunal decisions, to reject the Revenue's plea for reconsideration of classification under a different heading in the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of presenting the case and factual details before the lower authorities, highlighting that introducing a new case in appeal was not in line with established legal principles. As a result, the appeal was rejected based on the legal precedents and principles cited.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides a detailed overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal provisions and precedents.