2001 (6) TMI 788 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Authorization to file the appeal
2. Marketability of items for classification under tariff entry
3. Identification of goods and marketability as per Apex Court's direction

Authorization to file the appeal:
The Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the authorization issued by the Commissioner for filing the appeal, contending that it was not proper and legal. The Counsel argued that the authorization given to the Assistant Commissioner was not in accordance with the law. He further pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the items in question were not marketable goods, citing precedents related to trusses, columns, and purlins. The Counsel also referred to a judgment concerning the straightening, cutting, bending, and punching of steel ingots, plates, channels, and bars for the erection of transmission towers, where it was held that such processes did not amount to manufacture.

Marketability of items for classification under tariff entry:
The Tribunal analyzed the Apex Court's judgment, which emphasized the need to examine the marketability of items and whether they could be classified under the relevant tariff entry. The original authority had classified the items under a specific sub-heading, indicating marketability based on captive use. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proving the items as goods and excisable goods classified under a particular sub-heading rested initially on the Revenue. The Tribunal stressed the importance of documentary evidence and a study of the manufacturing process to determine marketability and classification under the claimed sub-heading. Both the Revenue and the Assessee were granted the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the marketability and classification of the items.

Identification of goods and marketability as per Apex Court's direction:
The Tribunal concluded that a clear finding on the emergence of identifiable goods as per the tariff entry was crucial. It highlighted the Apex Court's direction on marketability as the test for classification and the necessity of determining whether the manufacturing processes resulted in identifiable goods. The Tribunal held that the matter required further scrutiny by the original authority for a de novo consideration. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the opportunity for additional evidence and submissions. The original authority was instructed to decide the matter with an open mind, considering the marketability and classification of the items under the relevant tariff entry.