2002 (5) TMI 630 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the decision of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise confirming a show cause notice proposing to levy duty on shuttering and centering.
2. Whether the goods in question are assessable to central excise.
3. Marketability of the goods and applicability of central excise duty.
4. Interpretation of the term "goods" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.
5. Previous tribunal decision on similar circumstances regarding central excise applicability.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the decision of the Collector confirming a show cause notice proposing duty on shuttering and centering. The appellant, a public undertaking, was engaged in constructing a stadium based on actual cost plus overheads. The show cause notice alleged duty evasion on steel supplied for construction. The appellant argued that shuttering, made of duty-paid materials, was not marketable goods under the Central Excise Act.

2. The appellant contended that the goods were not assessable to central excise as they were not marketable. It was argued that the shuttering, used for concreting immovable property, did not constitute goods for excise duty purposes. Reference was made to the concrete construction process to support this claim. The appellant also cited a previous tribunal decision where similar goods were held non-exigible to central excise.

3. On the issue of marketability, the adjudicating authority had discussed it in the impugned order. The appellant emphasized that marketability was not alleged in the show cause notice and was not proven. The Tribunal noted that although the shuttering was movable, marketability was not established in this case. Referring to a previous order, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, considering the lack of evidence on marketability.

4. The interpretation of the term "goods" under the Central Excise Act was crucial in determining the applicability of duty. The appellant's argument focused on the nature of the shuttering and its use in construction activities. The Tribunal's decision relied on the absence of marketability allegations in the show cause notice and previous consistent rulings to support the appellant's position.

5. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the lack of evidence proving marketability of the shuttering. The previous tribunal decision on a similar issue further supported the appellant's claim that the goods were not exigible to central excise duty. By setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument regarding the non-assessability of the goods in question.