2016 (3) TMI 1168 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Held that - the primary adjudication order as also the impugned orders-in-appeal are speaking orders and cannot be said to have been passed summarily. The orders rationally discuss the nature of the impugned goods vis- -vis entries in the Central Excise Tariff to arrive at the classification. We also find that while the appellant made certain assertions regarding classification, it did not give any supporting evidence - the lower adjudicating authorities have discharged their onus by giving the basis/grounds for determining the classification while the appellant never submitted any literature/documents/ evidence to support its assertions - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the classification of goods. The appeals were filed against orders-in-appeal upholding the order-in-originals issued for three Show Cause Notices (SCNs) related to the period from February 1993 to October 1993. The primary adjudication order detailed the goods involved, the classification claimed by the assessee, and the classification determined by the adjudicating authority, resulting in a differential duty of Rs. 5,92,202. The appellant failed to provide supporting evidence for their classification assertions, which led to the dismissal of their appeal. The lower authorities had discharged their onus by providing grounds for classification, while the appellant's reliance on an unsupported opinion from M/s. L&T was deemed unacceptable. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's stance on litigants withholding vital documents relevant to the case, emphasizing the need for evidence in legal proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the absence of representation by the appellant on multiple occasions, proceeding to decide the appeal on merit due to the lack of a request for adjournment. The orders-in-appeal and the primary adjudication order were deemed rational and not passed summarily, as they thoroughly discussed the nature of the goods and their classification based on the Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the appellant's failure to produce technical documentation supporting their classification contentions. The judgment underscored that a mere assertion without evidence holds no value in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned orders warranting appellate intervention, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.