2000 (1) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the items manufactured are goods and marketable?
2. Can the Larger period be invoked?
3. Should the benefit of Notifications be extended to the items?

Analysis:

1. Goods Classification:
The appeal concerned duty demand on articles of cement manufacture. The Commissioner classified the items as goods under Heading 6807, rejecting the appellants' argument that the items were not marketable goods. The appellants cited judgments to support their claim, but the Commissioner held that the items were sold to railways and, therefore, constituted goods. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification based on previous judgments and dismissed the appellants' argument against the goods classification.

2. Larger Period Invocation:
The appellants contested the invocation of the Larger period, claiming they provided information and acted in good faith. The Commissioner disagreed, citing lack of clearance details. The Tribunal decided to remand this aspect for further consideration along with the issue of Notification benefits, indicating a need for a reevaluation of the Larger period invocation.

3. Notification Benefits:
Regarding Notification No. 13/88 and No. 59/90-C.E., the Commissioner denied benefits based on non-compliance with Central Excise formalities and the specific application of the Notification to building construction, excluding bridges. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, citing precedents and a Board's Circular. The Tribunal set aside the order, remanding the case for a fresh review considering the Tribunal's judgment and the Circular, emphasizing a reevaluation of the Notification benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the original order and directed the Commissioner to reassess the issues of Notification benefits and the Larger period invocation within six months. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of reevaluating the Notification benefits in light of relevant judgments and Circulars, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the case.