2002 (1) TMI 1197 - AT - Central Excise

Excisability - Marketability - Yeast - Manufacture/propagation of yeast for captive consumption

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise Duty on yeast captively consumed, burden of marketability, appeal against orders-in-original.

Analysis:
The case involved the issue of Central Excise Duty on yeast captively consumed by the respondent, who contended that yeast emerging in the process of fermentation was not goods as it was neither bought nor sold and was not marketable. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged in an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment and held that the burden of marketability was on the Department, which was not discharged. Consequently, the orders-in-original were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

The appellant, being aggrieved by the ld. Commissioner's order, filed four appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the facts of the case, where Intelligence Central Excise Officers found the respondent engaged in the manufacture of various products, including yeast for captive consumption. The Tribunal noted that the issue of marketability was crucial, which was conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to its previous decisions in similar cases to support its conclusion.

During the hearing, the ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Dy. Commissioner, while the ld. Counsel for the respondent cited precedents where the Tribunal had held that the goods in question were not marketable, therefore not liable for duty. The ld. Counsel argued that their case was covered by these decisions, and the impugned order should be sustained. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no legal or factual infirmity in the ld. Commissioner's order. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the settled issue of marketability and the precedents cited, ultimately rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the settled principle of marketability as per the Supreme Court judgment and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the burden of marketability was not discharged by the Department, leading to the rejection of the appeals against the orders-in-original.