2002 (6) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether carded wool is a manufactured product and marketable.
2. Whether carded wool is excisable.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 and SSI Notification No. 16/97.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether carded wool is a manufactured product and marketable:

The adjudicating officer held that carded wool is a manufactured product and marketable, even if consumed captively. The appellant contended that carded wool produced in their factory was not marketable and cited various legal precedents to support this claim. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the appellant had filed a classification declaration for carded wool under Heading No. 5105.10, indicating its marketability. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, noting that carded wool is specified in the tariff and corroborated by the HSN description.

The Tribunal examined the description of carded wool in the HSN, which states that carding disentangles the fibers and lays them parallel, forming webs. This description was supported by a chemical test. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., which emphasized that classification disputes should be resolved with reference to the HSN. The Tribunal concluded that carded wool is indeed a manufactured product.

2. Whether carded wool is excisable:

The appellant argued that carded wool is not excisable as it is not marketable. They cited several Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that mere inclusion in the tariff does not establish marketability. The Tribunal noted that marketability is an essential ingredient for excisability. The authorities below had not provided evidence of marketability, and the Chemical Laboratory report was silent on this issue. The appellant had filed an affidavit from their association stating that carded wool is not traded or marketed. The Tribunal found that the Department had not produced any comparable evidence to counter this claim.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 and SSI Notification No. 16/97:

The appellant argued that if carded wool is an intermediate stage in the manufacture of pressed wool felt, it should be exempt under Notification No. 67/95. They noted that the Department did not demand duty on carded wool when the final product was dutiable, but only when it was exempt under the SSI Notification. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner to examine the applicability of these notifications.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner to determine the marketability of carded wool and the applicability of the relevant notifications. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to provide the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.