Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1999 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (1) TMI 88 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty demand.

Analysis:
The case involved an application seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit of duty demand amounting to Rs. 72,252.74. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of "Rubberised Textile Sheet" classified under Heading 59.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute arose regarding the classification of an intermediate substance called "Rubber Compound" (Vulcanisation Solution) by the Department under Heading 4005.00, attracting Central Excise duty for the period from 1-7-1989 to 31-12-1991. The appellants argued that the Rubber Compound was not liable to duty as it was not capable of being marketed, citing a previous Tribunal decision in their favor. The Department contended that the Rubber Compound was marketable based on its shelf-life of 48 hours, emphasizing the capability of the goods to be brought and sold in the market.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the impugned order. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the shelf-life of the goods as a factor in determining marketability, a point also addressed in the previous Tribunal order dated 12-3-1997. Referring to the decision in the case of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, the Tribunal highlighted that the burden to prove marketability rested on the revenue department. It was observed that the Department failed to provide evidence demonstrating the marketability of the product in question, apart from mentioning the 48-hour shelf-life. Given that a previous Tribunal order between the same parties had set aside a similar order relied upon by the authorities below, the Tribunal followed the precedent and set aside the impugned order, allowing the stay applications unconditionally and ultimately allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty demand and emphasizing the lack of evidence from the Department to establish the marketability of the Rubber Compound. The decision was based on the principles of burden of proof and consistency with a previous Tribunal order involving the same parties, ultimately allowing the appeal and disposing of the stay petition accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates