1991 (9) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods cleared by the first respondent as scrap without payment of Central Excise duty were actually scrap or waste.
2. Whether the goods were fit for marketing and could be used as wires or cables, justifying the imposition of Central Excise duty.
3. Whether the benefit of Rule 49 under which duty can be waived for non-marketable goods is applicable in this case.
4. Whether the clearance of goods under the supervision of Central Excise Officers prevents subsequent seizure and confiscation.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved determining whether the goods cleared by the first respondent as scrap without payment of Central Excise duty were actually scrap or waste. The Anti-Evasion Wing of DRI intercepted consignments of aluminium rods and wires consigned to the second respondent and found that the goods were not rendered unfit for marketing and could be used as aluminium wire rods. The adjudicating officer held the goods as not being scrap or waste, leading to the confiscation of the goods. However, the respondents argued that the goods were waste and scrap, as per ISI standards, and were cleared under the supervision of Central Excise Officers.

Issue 2:
The question of whether the goods were fit for marketing and could be used as wires or cables was crucial in justifying the imposition of Central Excise duty. The Department argued that the goods were capable of being used as per their normal use and were marketable, therefore Central Excise duty was applicable. However, the respondents contended that the goods were cleared as waste and scrap under the supervision of Central Excise Officers, and the adjudicating authority's finding was based on no evidence except their own opinion.

Issue 3:
Regarding the benefit of Rule 49 for waiving duty on non-marketable goods, the Department argued that the benefit could not be extended as the goods were marketable and actually marketed. The respondents, on the other hand, asserted that the goods were cleared as scrap under the supervision of Central Excise Officers, and the seizure was unwarranted.

Issue 4:
The final issue revolved around whether the clearance of goods under the supervision of Central Excise Officers prevented subsequent seizure and confiscation. The Tribunal noted that no evidence was presented regarding defects in the goods, no expert opinion was considered, and the clearance was done under the supervision of Central Excise Officers. The Tribunal found the seizure unwarranted and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the seizure was not justified in the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the marketability of the goods and the unwarranted seizure in a case where the goods were cleared under the supervision of Central Excise Officers.