2009 (5) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner in impugned order holding that battery boxes, lavatory inlays, door frames, seat frames supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory by the assessees were not semi-finished goods but fully excisable goods, held that the demand was barred by limitation as the assessees were under a bona fide belief that the goods were not assessable to duty. - the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessees were under bona fide belief and therefore the demand is time-barred, has not been successfully challenged by the revenue. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. - The cross objection filed by the assessees wherein they have challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods sold to Indian Railways were saleable/marketable goods and were not semi-finished goods is dismissed as no satisfactory explanation is adduced before the Bench to prove that the goods in question were semi-finished goods.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory were fully excisable goods or semi-finished goods.
2. Whether the demand for excise duty on the goods supplied was barred by limitation due to the assessees' bona fide belief.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the nature of goods supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) determined that the battery boxes, lavatory inlays, door frames, and seat frames were not semi-finished goods but fully excisable goods. The assessees contended that they believed the goods were not assessable to duty based on the purchase order from Indian Railways, which stated that excise duty was Nil. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessees' claim of bona fide belief in the absence of mala fide intent to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the revenue failed to challenge the acceptance of the assessees' belief, thereby rejecting the appeal against the demand for excise duty.

2. Additionally, the cross objection filed by the assessees challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s determination that the goods sold to Indian Railways were saleable/marketable goods and not semi-finished goods. The Tribunal dismissed the cross objection as the assessees failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to prove that the goods in question were indeed semi-finished goods. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on this aspect as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the nature of the goods supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory, as well as the limitation on the demand for excise duty based on the assessees' bona fide belief. The cross objection challenging the classification of goods was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the claim of semi-finished goods.