1992 (2) TMI 241 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of hypo-solution under Central Excise Tariff Act; Marketability and excisability of the product.

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I appealed against orders regarding the classification of hypo-solution produced by the respondents under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The department sought to classify the product under different headings, leading to disputes over excisability and marketability. The Assistant Collector initially held that the hypo-solution manufactured from duty-paid granules falls under a specific heading, while another order regarding sulphur hypo crude was challenged. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's orders, emphasizing the marketability and shelf life of the hypo-solution as crucial factors in determining excisability.

The main contention revolved around whether the hypo-solution constituted excisable goods falling under a specific tariff heading, as argued by the department. The department relied on the opinion of the Chief Chemist to assert that the product was a specially formulated item, not a simple solution of hypo in water. However, the respondents argued that the product was ephemeral, prepared for instant use, and not marketable. They cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing marketability as a key aspect of excisability. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed these arguments and the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the marketability aspect.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the Appellate Tribunal highlighted the central issue of whether the hypo-solution should be classified as excisable goods under a specific tariff heading. While the department emphasized the specialized nature of the product, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the marketability of the hypo-solution. Citing the Supreme Court decision emphasizing marketability as a crucial factor for excisability, the Tribunal concluded that the department failed to establish the marketability of the product. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) order, determining that the hypo-solution was not excisable goods. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and the Cross Objections were disposed of accordingly.