1997 (3) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Excisable goods - Excisability and Marketability - Exemption notification - SSI exemption - Duty liability

Issues Involved:
1. Classification and excisability of untrimmed brass circles/sheets.
2. Applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
3. Liability of duty payment: job worker vs. principal manufacturer.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Central Excise Rules.
5. Validity of the common order passed for different appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification and Excisability of Untrimmed Brass Circles/Sheets:
The core issue revolves around whether untrimmed brass circles/sheets are excisable products under heading 74.09 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The tribunal observed that untrimmed sheets and circles of copper/copper alloys are indeed excisable products falling under heading 74.20 of CET. The appellants themselves described their products as classifiable under this heading. The tribunal dismissed the contention that untrimmed circles/sheets are not marketable commodities due to lack of supporting evidence. It was emphasized that the Central Excise schedule lists excisable goods, and an item's mention therein creates a rebuttable presumption of its excisability, which the appellants failed to rebut.

2. Applicability of the Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.:
The appellants argued that they were entitled to an exemption of Rs. 30 Lakhs under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The tribunal noted that Notification No. 178/88, which initially governed the excisability of untrimmed circles, was rescinded by Notification No. 64/94, effective from 1-3-1994. This rescission did not render the goods non-excisable but affected the availability of exemption. The tribunal acknowledged that Notification No. 59/94 extended the benefit to heading 74.09 from 1-3-1994. Therefore, the benefit under Notification 214/86 could not be denied to the appellants from the period it came into force, subject to fulfilling the conditions and procedures prescribed.

3. Liability of Duty Payment: Job Worker vs. Principal Manufacturer:
The tribunal examined whether the duty liability lay with the job workers (appellants) or the principal manufacturers (suppliers of raw materials). It was noted that Notification No. 214/86 exempted job workers from payment of duty, placing the liability on the suppliers of raw materials or semi-finished goods. The tribunal emphasized that the responsibility for fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Notification No. 214/86 lay with the principal manufacturers, not the job workers. The tribunal also highlighted that the duty liability, if any, arising from non-fulfillment of conditions, would lie on the suppliers.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Central Excise Rules:
The tribunal addressed the procedural compliance under Rule 57F(2) and other relevant rules. It was noted that the goods were received under Rule 57F(2), and the appellants referred to the movement of goods under gate pass and case of challans. The tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Notification No. 214/86, including procedural requirements, for claiming the exemption.

5. Validity of the Common Order Passed for Different Appellants:
The appellants contended that a common order was passed without considering the differences in the facts of different parties. The tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the period involved for different parties was different, and the Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Collector should have taken these differences into account. The tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, emphasizing that each case should be examined on its own merits.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, instructing the adjudicating authority to re-examine each case individually, taking into account the differences in periods and facts, and ensuring compliance with the conditions and procedures prescribed in the relevant notifications and rules.

← Previous Next →