9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether excise duty was leviable on the intermediate product? 2. Whether the intermediate product fell within the classification in the relevant Tariff Item No. 15A(1)(ii)? 3. Whether the demand for duty could exceed six months preceding the show cause notice? 4. Whether the evidence as to marketability should be separately considered in conjunction with other evidence? 5. Whether the intermediate product falls within Tariff Entry 15A(1)(ii)? Analysis: In Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988, the appellant manufactured Ion-Exchanges, with an intermediate product called D.V.B. beads consumed in the manufacturing process. The dispute centered on the leviability of excise duty on the intermediate product. The CEGAT considered three key points: marketability of the goods, classification under Tariff Item No. 15A(1)(ii), and the issue of limitation. While the Members agreed on the limitation period, there was a difference of opinion on marketability and classification. One Member held the goods were marketable and required a remand for classification determination, while the other two Members believed the goods fell under the specified tariff entry without the need for a remand. The appeal was dismissed, leading to the appellant's challenge. In Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 1997, the appellant contested the applicability of Tariff Item No. 15A(1)(ii) and the lack of consideration on marketability by the first appellate authority. Despite the absence of a limitation issue, the Tribunal relied on its earlier judgment from 1988 and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court for redress. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, referenced previous judgments to emphasize that specification in the tariff alone does not prove marketability. The Court highlighted the necessity of considering evidence on marketability produced by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found that the Tribunal had not adequately assessed the evidence on marketability and directed a remand on this aspect. Additionally, the Court noted the need for a detailed examination to determine whether the intermediate product fell within Tariff Entry 15A(1)(ii), calling for a remand on this issue as well. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgments in both cases and remitted them for further consideration on the marketability of the intermediate products and their classification under Tariff Item 15A(1)(ii). The Court confirmed the limitation finding in Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
|
