2000 (8) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Manufacturing of 'shoe uppers' from raw leather for export, duty demand and penalties under Notification 214/86-CE, marketability of 'shoe uppers', compliance with Notification 13/92, establishment of export of goods, waiver of pre-deposit, applicability of exemption from Registration Control under Notification 12/92, imposition of penalties.

Analysis:

1. Manufacturing of 'shoe uppers' and duty demand under Notification 214/86-CE:
The case involved the manufacturing of 'shoe uppers' from raw leather for export, with duty demand and penalties confirmed due to non-compliance with Notification 214/86-CE. The Commissioner found that the goods were not exported as claimed by the appellants, leading to the duty demand and penalties. The appellants argued that marketability requires an essential ingredient of stock and sale, citing a previous Tribunal case. They also highlighted compliance with Notification 13/92 and the absence of clandestine activities.

2. Establishment of export of goods and waiver of pre-deposit:
The appellants were required to establish the export of goods, but failed to do so, leading to the confirmation of duty demands and penalties. However, during the appeal, a significant portion of the impugned goods was explained to have been used for export shipments. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded with the final decision, considering the submissions from both sides.

3. Marketability of 'shoe uppers' and exemption from Registration Control:
The Tribunal did not find it necessary to arrive at a finding on the marketability of 'shoe uppers' since the Commissioner had not provided any conclusive determination on the subject. Additionally, the appellants were covered by an exemption from Registration Control under Notification 12/92, and their compliance with this notification justified the absence of any penalties in the case.

4. Final decision and order:
After considering the submissions and the facts of the case, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The decision was influenced by the lack of evidence establishing the entry of goods into the domestic market, the liberalized system of exports, and the deferred recovery of Excise duty until goods enter the area of domestic consumption. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Revenue establishing the entry of goods into the domestic market to levy Excise duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering various factors such as compliance with notifications, lack of evidence on marketability, and the necessity of Revenue to establish goods' entry into the domestic market for Excise duty levy.