2004 (5) TMI 408 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of non-accountal of graphite crucibles in excess compared to recorded balance in RG-1 register.
2. Reversal of adjudicating authority's findings by Commissioner (Appeals) leading to imposition of redemption fine and duty confirmation.
3. Requirement of recording crucibles in RG-1 register.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the non-accountal of 763 graphite crucibles in excess of the recorded balance in the RG-1 register. The appellants argued that the crucibles were not fully finished as they lacked protective coating (glazing) necessary for marketability. The adjudicating authority accepted this argument, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, imposing a redemption fine and confirming duty payment. The Tribunal had to determine if the crucibles needed to be recorded in the RG-1 register.

2. The Tribunal noted that the crucial issue was whether the graphite crucibles, lacking protective coating, were required to be included in the RG-1 register. The adjudicating authority found that the crucibles must have protective coatings for marketability. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order-in-appeal did not provide evidence that unglazed crucibles were ever marketed or removed by the appellants. The only evidence cited was the stamp "Red Diamond," which was insufficient as it only denoted a specific variety, not completion of the finishing process. Without proof of marketability without glazing, the charge of non-accountal in the RG-1 register could not be upheld.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-appeal. The decision emphasized the lack of evidence demonstrating marketability of unglazed crucibles and the necessity of protective coating for finished goods to be accounted for in the RG-1 register. The judgment clarified the importance of establishing marketability for goods to be considered finished and accounted for properly, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the lack of sufficient evidence supporting the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision.