2003 (3) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication - Cross-examination - Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts - Classification

Issues:
1. Adjournments and out-of-turn hearing requests.
2. Duty payable on goods, marketability of product, burden of proof.
3. Commissioner's order, test reports, cross-examination request.
4. Technical evidence, affidavits, marketability arguments.
5. Appellant's submissions, expert opinions, test results.
6. Commissioner's reliance on reports, refusal of cross-examination.
7. Product stability, marketability, and expert opinions.
8. Extended period of limitation, communication to jurisdictional officers.
9. Classification of goods, Supreme Court judgment reference.
10. Setting aside the Commissioner's order, appeal allowed.

1. Adjournments and Out-of-Turn Hearing Requests:
The appeal was listed for out-of-turn hearing due to various adjournments requested by either party, leading to delays in the case.

2. Duty Payable on Goods, Marketability of Product, Burden of Proof:
The appellant, a toy manufacturer, was issued notices for non-payment of duty on plastisol used in toy production. The Commissioner concluded the product was marketable based on test reports, rejecting appellant's claims on viscosity depressant necessity and marketability.

3. Commissioner's Order, Test Reports, Cross-Examination Request:
The Commissioner's order relied on test reports to determine marketability, dismissing cross-examination requests of key experts. The appellant's contentions on marketability and burden of proof were not accepted.

4. Technical Evidence, Affidavits, Marketability Arguments:
Appellant argued the product was not truly plastisol due to lack of viscosity depressant, making it unsuitable for market. Technical evidence and affidavits supported this claim, but the Commissioner did not consider them.

5. Appellant's Submissions, Expert Opinions, Test Results:
Appellant submitted expert opinions and test results indicating the product's instability without viscosity depressant, challenging its marketability. However, the Commissioner relied solely on certain reports.

6. Commissioner's Reliance on Reports, Refusal of Cross-Examination:
The Commissioner's reliance on specific reports led to the refusal of cross-examination requests, impacting the assessment of the product's marketability and duty liability.

7. Product Stability, Marketability, and Expert Opinions:
Debates on product stability, marketability, and expert opinions influenced the Commissioner's decision, highlighting conflicting viewpoints on the nature of the product.

8. Extended Period of Limitation, Communication to Jurisdictional Officers:
The appellant argued against the extended period of limitation, citing prior communication to jurisdictional officers about product manufacturing. The Commissioner's response to this argument was deemed inadequate.

9. Classification of Goods, Supreme Court Judgment Reference:
The Commissioner's classification of goods differed from the notice, raising issues of procedural fairness. Reference to a Supreme Court judgment was made regarding the Commissioner's authority to make new cases in the order.

10. Setting Aside the Commissioner's Order, Appeal Allowed:
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment considering all relevant aspects, including marketability and classification of goods.

← Previous Next →