2000 (10) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Molten Wax as excisable goods under Tariff Heading 34.04 and liability to duty of excise

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Molten Wax under Tariff Heading 34.04

The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of Molten Wax used in the manufacture of Wax Coated Wrappers/Papers. The Commissioner of Central Excise alleged that the Molten Wax, comprising Paraffin Wax, falls under Heading 3404.00 as Prepared Wax. The appellants contested this classification, arguing that the Wax used by them is essentially Paraffin Wax in a hotmelt stage, incapable of being marketed separately. The appellants emphasized that the Molten Wax is an intermediate product necessary for the wax coating process and is entirely consumed during manufacturing, with no scope for commercial sale. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand for excise duty and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Marketability of Molten Wax for Excisability

The crucial aspect considered by the Tribunal is the marketability of the Molten Wax to determine its liability to excise duty. The appellants contended that the Molten Wax, emerging at high temperatures during the manufacturing process and consumed in that state, is not a marketable product. They argued that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of the Molten Wax at the stage it arises in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal examined the process of Hotmelt Wax coating and compared it to precedents, such as the case of TISCO regarding molten iron and Shankar Packaging Private Ltd. case concerning molten plastic film, where non-marketable products were held non-excisable. Additionally, the Tribunal cited Board Circulars regarding non-excisability of products like Molten Sulphur and Sugar Syrup produced in intermediate stages for captive consumption. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Molten Wax produced by the appellants is not capable of being marketed and hence not liable for excise duty.

Conclusion

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The decision rested on the determination that the Molten Wax used in the manufacturing process was not a marketable product, aligning with established legal principles and precedents. The Tribunal emphasized the onus on the Revenue to establish the marketability of disputed products for excisability, which was not met in this case. The judgment highlights the importance of marketability in classifying goods for excise duty and draws on relevant legal precedents and circulars to support the decision.