1997 (2) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment due to pending Supreme Court decision on classification of product.
2. Correct classification of the product under Tariff sub-heading 5804 - 5804.11 or 5804.90.
3. Opportunity to raise plea of correct classification despite not filing appeal or cross-objection.
4. Granting adjournment based on the issue being before the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The Respondents requested an adjournment in the appeal hearing due to a pending Supreme Court decision on the classification of the product in question, Round Mesh Mosquito Nettings. The Respondents' counsel stated that their own appeal before the Supreme Court on the same issue was scheduled to be heard soon. The Appellant strongly opposed the adjournment, emphasizing the significant amount involved and the Department's request for early hearing considering the strong case in favor of Revenue.

2. The main issue for decision in the appeal was the correct classification of the product under Tariff sub-heading 5804, specifically whether it should be classified under 5804.11 or 5804.90. The Appellant argued that the product should fall under 5804.11 after the relevant sub-heading amendment, contrary to the Collector (Appeals) decision classifying it under 5804.90. The Respondents also raised the issue that their goods may fall under Chapter 52 instead of Chapter 58.

3. The Respondents' counsel referred to a previous Tribunal decision allowing new grounds to be raised before the Tribunal, even if not raised earlier, following the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case. Despite not filing an appeal or cross-objection, the Respondents were granted the opportunity to argue for the correct classification of their product under Chapter 52, as they had raised this claim before the Assistant Collector.

4. Considering the issue of correct classification and the applicability of Chapter 52 for the product being reportedly before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal granted the adjournment requested by the Respondents. The matter was adjourned to a later date to await the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, showing the Tribunal's inclination to allow the adjournment based on the issue being under consideration by a higher court.