9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings. 2. Entitlement of the appellants to import inputs under exemption. 3. Whether the process undertaken by the appellant qualifies as manufacturing excisable goods. 4. Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff in relation to excisability of goods. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the confirmation of duty demand by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 34,04,317/- in a previous order, following a remand with directions. This sets the context for the subsequent analysis of the issues. 2. The dispute revolves around the entitlement of the appellants to import inputs under exemption as per Notification No. 52/2003. The exemption is subject to the condition that the imported inputs are used in manufacturing excisable finished goods. The appellants had been paying duty on rags emerging from the imported goods since 2001. The Revenue contests that the process of converting un-mutilated worn clothing into rags does not result in excisable goods, thereby challenging the appellants' eligibility for the exemption. 3. The Tribunal evaluates whether the process undertaken by the appellant constitutes manufacturing excisable goods. It observes that the Commissioner did not dispute that the process amounts to manufacture and that the resulting rags are marketable. The Commissioner's rejection of the claim was based on the argument that rags are not specified under a specific tariff heading. However, the Tribunal disagrees with this reasoning, emphasizing that excisability is determined by whether the item is a result of manufacture and is marketable, rather than its specific tariff classification. 4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff concerning the excisability of goods. It highlights that the specification of goods in the tariff is primarily for duty rate fixation, and the absence of a specific mention does not render the goods non-excisable if they meet the criteria of being manufactured and marketable. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal asserts that goods not listed in the tariff can still be excisable if they satisfy the essential criteria of manufacture and marketability. 5. Based on the analysis of manufacture and marketability, the Tribunal concludes that the appellants have established a prima facie case in their favor. Consequently, the Tribunal allows the stay petition unconditionally, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellants' eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 52/2003. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision on the issues raised in the case.
|
