2004 (4) TMI 418 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Central Excise duty is leviable on goods manufactured by M/s. Varnoj Associates.

Analysis:
In this appeal, the primary issue is whether Central Excise duty is applicable to the goods produced by M/s. Varnoj Associates. The Respondents manufacture various items for installation, and the Revenue argues that these items are excisable goods capable of being marketed. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled the products as non-excisable due to lack of evidence supporting their marketability. The Revenue contends that the goods are marketable, citing statements from the proprietor of the Respondent firm. However, the Respondent's Advocate argues that the goods are not excisable as they cannot be brought to the market for sale, referencing a Bombay High Court case to support their stance.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal notes that the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating the marketability of the impugned products. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the duty and penalty demands due to the lack of evidence in the Order-in-Original supporting the goods' marketability. The Tribunal emphasizes that the mere mention of the goods being moveable and sellable is insufficient without substantial proof of marketability. The statement from the Respondent's proprietor does not establish the goods' marketability, as it only confirms fabrication on behalf of specific entities without indicating market readiness. Moreover, the Revenue did not present evidence showing that the goods were fabricated in a workshop and transported to the site, a crucial aspect for goods to be excisable. The Tribunal upholds the previous decision, stating that excisable goods must be in a condition to be bought and sold in the market, and rejects the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of evidence supporting the goods' marketability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents referenced, and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the lack of evidence supporting the marketability of the goods in question.