2003 (7) TMI 360 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Additional grounds raised by the appellant for consideration in the appeal.
- Whether additional grounds can be allowed at the appellate stage.
- Comparison of the present case with cited judgments concerning the raising of new grounds.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought to introduce additional grounds in the appeal, arguing that the process of doubling/multifolding of single yarn did not constitute manufacturing until a specific date. They contended that central excise duty should not be imposed on the product before that date. The Collector's alleged error in not recognizing this fact was a key point raised by the appellant.

2. The learned DR opposed the appellant's request, citing precedents where raising new pleas at the appellate stage was not allowed. The DR emphasized the need for consistency in not permitting new arguments that were not presented before lower authorities. References were made to cases like Hindustan Lever Ltd v. Collector and Magic Products v. Commr. to support this stance.

3. In response, the appellant's representative argued that raising a question of law, as in this case, was permissible at the appellate stage. They highlighted the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law, asserting that the latter could indeed be raised for the first time during the appeal. The representative pointed to a previous case, Madurai Coats Ltd. v. CCE, to support this position.

4. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, differentiated the present situation from the cited judgments by the Revenue. While those cases dealt with factual issues and the introduction of new evidence, the appellant's case involved a question of law. Citing the precedent set in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal allowed the additional grounds to be raised at the appellate stage. The appellant was directed to amend the necessary forms, and the appeal was scheduled for final hearing on a specified date.