1999 (1) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of CO2 gas generated during beer fermentation to Central Excise duty.
2. Classification of SS/MS Tanks as goods and the responsibility for duty payment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of CO2 Gas Generated During Beer Fermentation to Central Excise Duty:

The appeal arises from an order confirming a duty demand on CO2 gas collected and used during beer fermentation. The appellant argued that the CO2 gas generated at the intermediate stage of beer fermentation was not commercially known as CO2 gas and was not sold but captively consumed in beer production. They relied on Tariff Advice No. 83/81, which stated that such CO2 gas is not liable to Central Excise duty. The Commissioner overruled these objections, holding that CO2 gas generated during fermentation was dutiable.

The appellant contended that the CO2 gas was not produced intentionally and was not in a marketable stage, emphasizing that marketability is a key criterion for goods to be dutiable. They cited several judgments, including the Supreme Court case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company Ltd., which established that goods must be marketable to be subject to duty. The appellant also referenced the Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. Travancore Electro and the Supreme Court's ruling in C.C.E. v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, which held that intermediate products that are not marketable are not dutiable.

The Tribunal found that the CO2 gas in question was not removed in any form and emerged as a technological necessity during beer fermentation. Evidence showed that a separate plant costing Rs. 40,00,000/- was required to make the CO2 gas marketable, which was installed only in 1995. The Tribunal concluded that the CO2 gas was not in a marketable stage during the relevant period, applying the Supreme Court's judgment in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not discharged its burden of proving the marketability of the CO2 gas.

Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea of bona fide belief based on the Tariff Advice, holding that the demand was barred by time, as established in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd.

2. Classification of SS/MS Tanks as Goods and Responsibility for Duty Payment:

The appeal also addressed the duty demand on SS/MS Tanks fabricated by a contractor, Jaiswal Engineers and Fabricators. The appellant argued that these tanks were immovable property and that the contractor, not the appellant, was the manufacturer. The Commissioner rejected this plea, holding the appellant liable for duty because they supplied materials and provided land for fabrication.

The Tribunal found that the tanks were indeed fabricated by the contractor under a contract, with the appellant only supplying raw materials and residential accommodation for the workers. There was no evidence of financial flowback or control over the contractor's manufacturing process. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Basant Industries v. C.C.E. and Britania Biscuits Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., the Tribunal held that the contractor was the manufacturer and the duty could not be demanded from the appellant. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Metal Reconditioning Works v. C.C.E., which supported the view that providing land and other benefits to a contractor does not make the appellant the manufacturer.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that:
- The CO2 gas generated during beer fermentation was not marketable and, therefore, not dutiable.
- The duty demand on SS/MS Tanks was not sustainable as the contractor was the manufacturer, not the appellant.

The appeal succeeded both on merit and on the ground of time bar, and the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

← Previous Next →