2017 (10) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Loose Stock - duty liability - whether the loose stock shown in column (in Finishing room) is a finished stock or otherwise in order to levy duty as per rate prevailing prior to 15.12.98 or in term of section 3A after 15.12.98 or otherwise? - Held that - Once the goods is manufactured in terms of Section 2 (f) which is not in dispute in the present case, the said goods become an excisable goods hence the same is finished goods - Accordingly the loose stock of fabric in the present case is Finished goods and the stock of such Finished goods lying as on 15.12.1998 will attract excise duty at the rate prevailing during the period prior to 15.12.2008 i.e 12% BED & 8% AED - the issue is no longer res-integra as it has been decided against the assessee by Divisional Bench of this Tribunal in the judgment of Vishnu Dying & Printing works 2005 (11) TMI 142 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that The loose stock only refers to stock of finished goods which have not been packed as there is a separate entry for finished goods in the packed condition in the RG-1 register - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of excisability of goods shown as finished or semi-finished in RG-1 register under Notification 41/98-CE (N.T.); Whether loose stock in Finishing Room is considered finished goods for excise duty purposes.

Analysis:
The case involved the Respondent following the procedure under Notification 41/98-CE (N.T.), where a new excise duty structure for textile processors came into force on 16.12.98. The dispute arose regarding the excisability of goods shown in the RG-1 register as finished or semi-finished goods. The Respondent argued that the loose stock in the Finishing Room should not be considered finished goods, while the department contended that any manufactured goods, even in loose form, are liable for excise duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside, ruling that the stock in the Finishing Room is not finished goods.

The key issue for determination was whether the loose stock shown in the Finishing Room should be considered finished goods for the purpose of levying excise duty. The Member (Judicial) analyzed the facts and found that the goods, although in loose form, were awaiting only the process of folding and packing, making them excisable goods. It was emphasized that once goods are manufactured, they become excisable goods and are deemed finished goods for excise duty purposes. The Member referred to previous tribunal judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Vishnu Dyeing & Fitting Works and CCE, Mumbai-V v. Dharmesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., which supported the position that loose stock in the RG-1 register should be treated as finished goods.

Despite the absence of the respondent during multiple hearings, the Member considered the submissions made by the Appellant's Assistant Commissioner. It was concluded that the loose stock of fabric in the present case should be classified as finished goods, attracting excise duty at the rate prevailing before 15.12.98. Relying on the precedents and the provisions of the Central Excise Act, it was held that the loose stock, even in its unfinished state, qualifies as finished goods for excise duty purposes. The impugned order was set aside, and the revenue's appeal was allowed, affirming the liability of the Respondent to pay excise duty on the stock in question.

In summary, the judgment clarified the excisability of goods shown as finished or semi-finished in the RG-1 register, emphasizing that once goods are manufactured, they are considered excisable goods and liable for duty, irrespective of their form. The decision reinforced the position that loose stock in the Finishing Room should be treated as finished goods for excise duty assessment, aligning with previous tribunal rulings and statutory provisions.