2001 (10) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether duty of excise is leviable on goods manufactured on job-basis.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Submission by Appellant: The Appellant, M/s. Bharat Enterprises, argued that the rough machined/job worked material returned by them is not the finished moulds/dies actually manufactured by the supplier. They contended that these roughly machined moulds are not marketable and, therefore, should not be subjected to duty. They cited legal precedents and the Interpretative Rules to support their argument. Additionally, they claimed that no penalty should be imposed as they maintained proper accounts and acted in good faith.

2. Counter-argument by Department: The Department argued that the products in question had the essential character of finished goods, making them liable for excise duty. They emphasized that as die/mould is a marketable product, it cannot be claimed as non-marketable. The Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) had also found in favor of imposing duty based on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules.

3. Judgment: The Tribunal observed that the rough cut steel blocks sent by M/s. Lumax Industries to the Appellants were processed into semi-finished dies with the essential character of a finished die. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, which includes incomplete or unfinished goods having the essential character of finished goods. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants did not provide evidence to refute the essential character of the finished die. While duty was upheld, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant that no penalty should be imposed due to the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with duty being upheld but penalty set aside based on the arguments presented and the application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules in determining the chargeability of excise duty on the goods manufactured on a job-basis.