2012 (7) TMI 818 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Whether duty of excise was liable to be paid on the sample of pesticides (excisable final products) preserved by the assessee as control samples during the period from May 2004 to January 2009 - Held that - pesticides are excisable and that the appellant was paying duty of excise whenever they were cleared from their factory. The appellant used to preserve samples of the goods manufactured in batches and cleared from the factory. These samples (control samples) used to be so preserved till the date of expiry. In case, during the relevant period, any complaint regarding the efficacy of the pesticide arose from the market, the appellant would conduct test on the relevant control samples to find out the cause of the complaint. It is claimed that this practice was followed as statutorily required. After the date of expiry, the control samples would be destroyed. On these facts, which are not in dispute, it has to be held that the appellant had no liability to pay duty on the control samples of pesticides during the relevant period of dispute - Following decision of Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad 2009 (6) TMI 485 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether duty of excise was liable to be paid on the control samples of pesticides preserved by the assessee during a specific period.

Analysis:
The judgment in this case revolves around the question of whether duty of excise was applicable on the control samples of pesticides preserved by the appellant during the period from May 2004 to January 2009. It is established that the pesticides in question are excisable products, and duty was paid when they were cleared from the factory. The appellant preserved control samples of the manufactured goods until their expiry date. These samples were used for conducting tests in case of complaints regarding the efficacy of the pesticides in the market. The appellant's practice of preserving control samples until expiry, conducting tests as required, and then destroying them is claimed to be in line with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal's decision in a similar case, Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad, supports the appellant's position. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant in that case, which further strengthens the appellant's argument in the present matter. Based on the facts presented and the legal precedent cited, it is concluded that the appellant had no obligation to pay duty on the control samples of pesticides during the relevant disputed period. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. The stay application is also disposed of accordingly.

In summary, the judgment clarifies that the appellant was not liable to pay duty of excise on the control samples of pesticides preserved during the specified period, as the preservation and destruction of these samples were in accordance with statutory requirements and supported by relevant legal precedent.