2005 (9) TMI 547 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether packing imported RBD Palmolein into 1 kg packs amounts to manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15.
2. Whether the benefit of earlier Tribunal decisions can be availed if the issue of manufacture was not raised before lower authorities.
3. Whether a question of law can be raised at any stage in the proceedings.
4. Whether a new question of law can be raised before the Tribunal in the first appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant received imported RBD Palmolein in containers and packed it into 1 kg packs. Duty demand was imposed, alleging that such packing constituted manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions held that packing into smaller packs did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the issue was covered by their earlier orders, and waived the duty demand.

2. The Revenue contended that since the issue of manufacture was not raised before lower authorities or in the show cause notice, the benefit of earlier Tribunal decisions could not be availed by the appellant. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument that a point not raised before lower authorities cannot be raised in appeal proceedings. However, the appellant argued that a question of law can be raised at any stage in the proceedings. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention, stating that a new question of law can be raised before the Tribunal in the first appeal.

3. The Revenue resisted granting a stay on the ground that the issue was not raised before the original authority and therefore could not be raised before the Tribunal. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their position. However, the Tribunal clarified that the judgment did not preclude raising a new question of law before the Tribunal in the first appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue's argument and ruled in favor of the appellant.

4. Ultimately, as the issue on merits was found to be covered in favor of the appellant by previous orders, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty demand and stayed the recovery until the appeal was disposed of. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 19-9-2005.