2007 (9) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Excavator Comm. (A) has no reason to uphold the order of adjudication Comm(A) held that goods in question meant for repair was the excavator only not a motor vehicle Impugned order is illegal and contrary to Apex Court judgment Appellant deserves consideration to uphold the majesty of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand amount justifies dismissal of the appeal.
2. Classification of the equipment as an excavator and its implication on taxation.
3. Adherence to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Upholding the order of the ld. Appellate Authority.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant argued that despite the meagre amount involved, there was a patent illegality in the impugned order, defying the ratio set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case. The appellant emphasized that dismissing the appeal without addressing this illegality would result in a miscarriage of justice and abuse of the legal process. The appellant contended that denying justice by insisting on a pre-deposit of penalty, when the service tax was already deposited, would legalize the illegality. The Tribunal acknowledged the far-reaching consequences and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of upholding the majesty of the law.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the equipment in question was an excavator, a fact uncontroverted by both the ld. Adjudicating Authority and the ld. Appellate Authority. The appellant highlighted a specific judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which classified excavators as motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant argued that this classification should be uniformly applied, and there should be no ambiguity in applying the law. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the lower authorities' decision contradicted the Apex Court judgment, and therefore, the appeal was allowed based on this classification.

Issue 3:
The appellant stressed the importance of following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which had categorically classified excavators as motor vehicles. The appellant argued that any discrimination in applying this classification would be unjust. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant, stating that the lower authorities had failed to apply the Apex Court judgment, leading to an unsustainable decision. The Tribunal emphasized the need to uphold the law and granted relief to the appellant in accordance with the Apex Court's decision.

Issue 4:
The ld. JDR representing Revenue supported the order of the ld. Appellate Authority, but the Tribunal found that the lower authority had mechanically adopted the order of adjudication without proper reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had incorrectly classified the equipment in question and decided to allow the appeal based on the Apex Court's clear classification of excavators as motor vehicles. The Tribunal emphasized the need to decide the appeal based on the established legal principles rather than sending the matter back to the lower authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of upholding the law and ensuring consistency in applying legal principles established by higher courts.