2006 (9) TMI 550 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Marketability of goods, Limitation period for duty evasion

Marketability of Goods:
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the marketability of goods is a factual determination that does not warrant interference. The Tribunal specifically noted that the manufacturers did not inform the Revenue that the Aluminium Wire Rods would be used in the manufacture of Aluminium Wire cleared without payment of duty. This lack of disclosure led to the longer period of limitation being rightly invoked. The Court referenced previous decisions to support this conclusion, emphasizing the importance of accurate classification lists and the consequences of not filing them. Ultimately, the Court found no fault in the Tribunal's order on this issue.

Limitation Period for Duty Evasion:
The Tribunal's finding on the limitation period centered around the manufacturers not filing a classification list or maintaining accounts for the Wire Rods in question. The manufacturers argued that since they had permission to send Aluminium Ingots to job workers under Rule 57F(2), the Revenue was aware of their activities, and thus, a longer period for invoking limitation was not justified. However, the Commissioner pointed out that the permission granted was specific to certain conditions, including bringing back the goods for clearance upon completion of manufacturing processes. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the use of Aluminium Wire Rods in the manufacture of duty-free Aluminium Wires without notifying the Revenue warranted the longer limitation period. By failing to disclose this crucial information, the manufacturers were held accountable for duty evasion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.

This comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court judgment delves into the issues of marketability of goods and the limitation period for duty evasion, highlighting the key findings and legal reasoning behind the decision.