2018 (8) TMI 8 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of reduce rate of duty - Adhesive Tape (USP) - benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - Held that - Without establishing that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable Revenue cannot raise the same grounds once again which has been adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority and if such ground is raised which has been already adjudicated upon then Revenue has to establish how the findings are not sustainable - there are no such arguments on behalf of Revenue to establish that the findings of First Appellate Authority are not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal arising from Order-in-Appeal rejection, Prayer for adjournment, Grounds of appeal regarding concessional rate of duty, Adhesive Tape under Tariff Item No. 30051020, Original Authority's conclusion, Commissioner (Appeals) decision, Sustainability of findings, Rejection of Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal in question originates from the rejection of an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur. The respondent initially requested an adjournment, which was denied, leading to the hearing of the matter. The learned AR presented grounds of appeal, emphasizing the Revenue's view supported by an amending Notification granting concessional rates of duty to specific items under a particular heading. The dispute centered on whether the exemption under a specific Notification applied only to "Wadding and Gauze" or to all items falling under a particular heading. The Original Authority had concluded that the respondent was not eligible for the reduced rate of duty for Adhesive Tape under Tariff Item No. 30051020. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the Revenue's ground to be non-sustainable and set aside the Original Order. The Tribunal noted that the grounds raised by Revenue had already been addressed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. It was emphasized that the Revenue needed to establish the unsustainability of the findings to raise the same grounds again. As the Revenue failed to provide such arguments, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and subsequently rejected it.

This judgment highlights the importance of presenting sustainable arguments and establishing the unsustainability of previous findings when challenging a decision. It underscores the need for thorough legal analysis and the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in appellate proceedings. The Tribunal's decision serves as a reminder of the principles governing the reconsideration of issues already adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority and the burden on the appealing party to demonstrate the inadequacy of prior findings.