9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (2) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of product known as front end dozer under Heading 84.32 of the CETA.
Analysis: 1. Background and Appeals: The case involves two appeals filed by the Revenue against orders-in-appeal regarding the classification of the product front end dozer under Heading 84.32 of the CETA. The respondents claimed exemption from duty under Notification Nos. 111/88 and 1/93. The Assistant Collector classified the product under Heading 84.31, leading to duty demands. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed and classified the product under Heading 84.32 as claimed by the respondents. 2. Previous Classification: The Tribunal noted that in a previous dispute, the Collector (Appeals) had classified the same product under Heading 84.32, a decision not challenged by the Revenue and thus final. The Revenue's attempt to change the classification now was deemed unjustified as no new facts or law errors were presented, and no changes were made to the product's design post the earlier decision. 3. Revenue's Stand and Legal Precedents: The Revenue's attempt to change the classification to Heading 84.30 in the appeals was rejected. It was highlighted that no new case can be introduced at the appeal stage, citing legal precedents like Prince Khadi Woollen Prod. Coop. and Warner Hindustan Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's inconsistent stance between the show cause notice and the appeal was not sustainable. 4. Final Decision: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and rejected them. The order was pronounced in open court, affirming the classification of the product front end dozer under Heading 84.32 of the CETA as per the earlier decision by the Collector (Appeals). In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the product under Heading 84.32 of the CETA, emphasizing the importance of consistency in legal arguments and the finality of previous decisions in similar disputes. The Revenue's attempt to alter the classification was deemed unwarranted, leading to the rejection of the appeals.
|
