2002 (4) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Central Excise duty is payable on Lay Flat Tubing.

Analysis:
The appeal involved the question of whether Central Excise duty is payable on Lay Flat Tubing manufactured by the Appellant, M/s. S.S. Bedi & Sons. The Appellant contended that the impugned goods were exempted from duty under a specific notification, except for a particular financial year. They argued that the demand for duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal time limit of 6 months, without any allegations of fraud or suppression of facts. The Appellant also raised the issue of marketability of the product, stating that duty cannot be levied on non-marketable goods. They further disputed the calculation of duty amount, claiming that the value of Lay Flat Tubing was below the exemption limit. The Appellant also challenged the imposition of penalty, asserting that no mens rea was involved in the non-payment of duty.

The Departmental Representative countered the arguments by stating that the Appellant had willfully suppressed facts to evade duty payment, justifying the extended period of 5 years for demanding excise duty. The Department argued that the Appellant's failure to challenge the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the time limit precluded them from raising the issue at the appeal stage. Additionally, the Department emphasized that the impugned goods were marketable, as the Appellant failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The Department also defended the imposition of penalty due to the Appellant's non-compliance with Central Excise Procedure.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's arguments regarding the time limit challenge, marketability of the goods, and the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal held that the Appellant's failure to challenge the findings at the lower appellate stage barred them from contesting the time limit issue. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant did not provide evidence to support the claim of non-marketability of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that a product's capability of being marketed is sufficient for duty imposition. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the error in calculating the duty amount and reduced the penalty imposed on the Appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by confirming the duty liability after allowing a specific abatement and reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,000.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely challenges to findings, the burden of proof on marketability, and the calculation of duty amounts in excise matters.