1984 (3) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the items manufactured by the appellants are liable to Central Excise duty.
2. Whether the seized goods fall under the purview of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Whether the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notification 132/68.
4. Whether the penalty and redemption fine imposed are justified.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to Central Excise Duty
The appellants argued that the seized items were not excisable under tariff entry 29A and were exempt from duty. They contended that the items were not movable property as they were part of the cold storage plant. However, the tribunal held that the items manufactured by the appellants were excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, attracting duty as per Section 3 of the Act.

Issue 2: Seized Goods under Central Excises and Salt Act
The appellants claimed that the confiscated items did not qualify as "goods" under the Act. They argued that the items, once fitted into the plant, should not be considered as movables. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the definition of "goods" under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act includes any movable property, and the manufactured items were deemed excisable goods.

Issue 3: Exemption under Notification 132/68
The appellants sought exemption under Notification 132/68 but were denied as the notification referred to an earlier one where similar items were held dutiable. The tribunal ruled that the appellants did not apply for exemption or obtain a license for manufacturing the parts, thus disqualifying them from claiming the benefit of the notification.

Issue 4: Penalty and Redemption Fine
The lower authorities had imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the appellants. However, the tribunal set aside the penalty and confiscation, citing an explanation in a notification that limits punishment for offenses. The tribunal upheld the duty payment but annulled the penalty and confiscation, thereby partially allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal found the appellants liable to pay duty on the manufactured items, rejected their claims of exemption, and overturned the penalty and confiscation while upholding the duty payment.