2004 (9) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding central excise duty on powder manufactured from granules
- Marketability of the powder in question compared to similar powder manufactured by another company

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute over central excise duty on powder manufactured from granules. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled that the powder in question, produced by the respondents, was not marketable and therefore not subject to excise duty. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disregarding the fact that a similar powder was being manufactured and sold in the market by another company, M/s. Polycon International Ltd. The Revenue argued that this indicated the marketability of the powder in question.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that during a visit by Revenue officers to their factory, it was observed that the powder they manufactured was sensitive to lump formation, unlike the powder manufactured by M/s. Polycon International Ltd. The respondents maintained that the two powders were made through different processes, leading to the distinct characteristics observed. The Commissioner (Appeals) had taken this into consideration and concluded that the powder in question was not marketable based on the specific findings from the visit note prepared by the Revenue officers.

The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and arguments presented, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had correctly considered the differences in the manufacturing processes and characteristics of the powders in question. It was established that the powder manufactured by the respondents was indeed sensitive to lump formation, rendering it non-marketable as per the verification conducted by Revenue officers. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal brought by the Revenue, thereby affirming that the powder in question was not liable for central excise duty.