MADURA COATS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above application filed by the appellant is to raise additional grounds inasmuch as they have stated that -

(2.) LEARNED DR has filed his objections through the Commissioner opposing the prayer to allow the additional grounds, on the ground that when a plea which was not raised before the lower authorities, opportunity is not to be given to the party to adduce evidence in that regard as it would amount to fresh case as held in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd v. Collector - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 31 ( P and H ). Likewise, he has prayed for applying the ratio as rendered in the case of Magic Products v. Commr. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 103 (Tri. -Chennai), wherein it has been held that the contention that even parts of oven are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 139/90 -Cus. had not been raised before the lower authorities and was not allowed to be raised before the Tribunal. Further reliance is made on the judgment on the same point as rendered in the case of K.R. Engg. Works v. Commr. - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 1218 (T); Commr. v. Tricky Distilleries and Chem. Ltd. - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 274 (T); Boving Fouress Ltd. v. Commr. -1998 (102) E.L.T. 94 (T); Ambica Steel Rolling Mills v. Collector - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 320; MRF Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 231.

(3.) LD . representative submits that the ground raised is a question of law and question of law can be raised for the first time in appellate stage also. In this regard, he refers to his own case in the case of Madurai Coats Ltd. v. CCE, Tricky - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 274, wherein the additional grounds raised before the Tribunal that process of doubling of single yarn does not amount to manufacture was held to be a question of law and it was allowed to be raised. He submits that all the judgments cited by DR pertained to facts which were not raised before the lower authorities and the Tribunal and the Court did not allow such facts to be raised. He submits that it is a well settled proposition and law that question of facts for the first time cannot be raised at appellate stage, while the question of law can be raised at the appellate stage.