2002 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entry of goods in the RG-1 register
2. Excisability of goods at different stages of manufacture
3. Marketability of goods under ISI markings
4. Concept of marketability for duty imposition
5. Difference between RG-1 and EB 4 registers
6. Acceptability of products by buyers
7. Confirmation of duty by Dy. Commissioner

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the entry of certain Diesel Generating Sets in the RG-1 register. The sets were found fully manufactured but not entered in the register, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessees, stating that the goods were still to undergo quality control testing before being entered in the register.

2. The Tribunal referred to previous orders and judgments to determine the excisability of goods at different stages of manufacture. It was highlighted that goods must be entered in the statutory register as soon as they are fully manufactured. The concept of RG-1 stage and excisability has been a contentious issue between the assessees and the department.

3. The issue of marketability under ISI markings was raised, emphasizing that goods must meet certain parameters to become marketable. The concept of marketability was introduced by the Supreme Court, stating that even fully manufactured goods cannot attract duty if they are not marketable.

4. The judgment discussed the difference between the RG-1 and EB 4 registers, where goods listed in the EB 4 register are considered marketable. The acceptability of products by buyers was deemed crucial in determining the RG-1 stage and excisability of goods.

5. It was emphasized that in dealing with the RG-1 stage issue, the focus should be on whether there was any intention to aid clandestine removal of goods by not making the entry in the register. The judgment concluded that there was no such indication in the present case, upholding the impugned orders and dismissing the appeal.

6. Regarding the confirmation of duty by the Dy. Commissioner, it was found that the duty paid was correctly confirmed, and the Commissioner's remarks criticizing the Dy. Commissioner were ordered to be removed from the record. The appeal was allowed in part on this subsidiary claim by the Revenue.