1997 (3) TMI 94 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the calcium carbide manufactured was only an intermediary product which was used for generation of acetylene gas in the same factory and cannot be subjected to excise duty? Held that - Considering Mr.Sorabjee's as appearing on behalf of the company contention that the question of imposing excise duty is inextricably linked up with the concept of marketability of the goods. If the goods are not acceptable in the market as a commercial commodity, the goods could not be subjected to excise duty reliance placed on a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 1995 (2) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in support of his contention we are of the opinion that these cases should be heard by a larger Bench. These matters may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary directions.

Summary

Issues:
Calcium carbide manufacturing process and excise duty liability.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether calcium carbide manufactured by a company is liable for excise duty. The company contended that the calcium carbide produced was an intermediary product used for generating acetylene gas within the same factory. They argued that since the calcium carbide did not comply with statutory provisions for commercial purity and packaging, it did not qualify as "goods" subject to excise duty. The company also asserted that since the calcium carbide was not sold in the market and was used for captive consumption, the question of levy and collection of duty did not arise.

However, the excise authorities and the Central Government held that the calcium carbide was assessable under the Central Excise Act. They argued that the product fell under Tariff Entry No. 14AA and was liable for ad valorem duty. They contended that the product was indeed sold in the market previously and was considered "goods" under the Act. Compliance with the Carbide of Calcium Rules was not a prerequisite for excisability, and duty was levied on manufacture, not sale. They further argued that the use of calcium carbide for captive consumption constituted its removal and made it assessable to duty.

The High Court initially ruled in favor of the company, stating that the calcium carbide did not qualify as "goods" under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The court held that excise duty could only be levied upon removal of the goods from the factory. Consequently, the orders imposing duty were quashed. However, in the Supreme Court, the company abandoned the argument regarding the necessity of physical removal before duty imposition. Instead, they focused on the marketability aspect, citing a previous judgment that linked excise duty imposition with the concept of goods' marketability.

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented, decided that the case required a larger Bench for further deliberation. It was deemed necessary to address the issue of marketability of goods concerning excise duty liability. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions, indicating the need for a more comprehensive examination of the legal principles involved in determining excisability based on market acceptance.