2005 (10) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of excise duty on parts of connectors
- Appeal regarding classification of intermediate products used in manufacturing connectors

Analysis:
1. Appeal against demand of excise duty on parts of connectors:
- The first appeal was filed by the assessee against the demand of excise duty on parts of connectors used in the manufacture of complete connectors supplied to various organizations.
- The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
- The contention of the manufacturer was that the parts of connectors were not marketable as they only supplied complete connectors to customers, not parts.
- The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to establish the marketability of the parts of connectors. The burden to prove marketability falls on the Revenue, which was not discharged.
- Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that without proof of marketability, the duty demand and penalty imposed were not sustainable. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.

2. Appeal regarding classification of intermediate products used in manufacturing connectors:
- The second appeal was related to the classification of intermediate products used in the manufacture of connectors.
- The Assistant Commissioner dropped the charges against the appellants, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
- The Revenue filed an appeal against this order, arguing that the intermediate products should have been classified as parts of connectors.
- The Tribunal found that since the parts of connectors were not established to be marketable, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the demand of excise duty on parts of connectors, as the marketability of the parts was not proven. The appeal by the Revenue regarding the classification of intermediate products was rejected based on the same reasoning. The burden of proof regarding marketability lies with the Revenue, and in the absence of such proof, the duty demand and penalty were set aside.