1997 (11) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Excisability and dutiability of glass waste under Central Excise Tariff, classification under Heading No. 7014, applicability of Supreme Court decisions, limitation period for show cause notices.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the excisability and dutiability of glass waste, specifically classified under sub-heading 7014.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, represented by Shri S.V. Arya, argued that the glass waste should not be considered excisable as it was not explicitly mentioned in the tariff. The appellant cited the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Indian Aluminium Industries Ltd. and Balaji Enterprises to support their stance. Additionally, the appellant challenged the order-in-appeal on the grounds of limitation. On the respondent's side, Shri R.S. Sangia represented the Revenue during the proceedings.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the matter, considering the various decisions referenced by both parties. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Dunlop India Limited and several other judicial precedents. The appellant's argument that glass waste was not excisable and dutiable was supported by references to legal judgments, including the Supreme Court decision in the case of Balaji Enterprises v. C.C.E., Madras. The Tribunal noted the need for a detailed examination of the process involved in dealing with glass fibre/wool waste and its marketability based on the specific characteristics of the goods.

Regarding the distinction between sale and marketability raised by the appellants, the Tribunal expressed inability to appreciate the argument, emphasizing that goods being sold at different prices did not negate their marketability. The appellants provided invoices showing the sale of continuous fibre wastes and glass wool wastes to different customers, indicating potential utility not fully understood by the appellants themselves. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of limitation, confirming that the show cause notices issued were within the normal limitation period, covering the relevant time frames.

Given the complexity of the excisability and dutiability issue and the reliance on various legal decisions by both parties, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to delve deeper into the matter during the final hearing. The appellants did not raise financial hardship as a defense. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated timeframe, with the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining duty amount and a stay on recovery pending the disposal of the appeals. The case was scheduled for reporting compliance and further orders on a specified date in the future.