1999 (1) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the product "Upset Forge" is an excisable product liable to duty under Heading 84.09.
2. Whether the demand is time-barred due to suppression of facts.
3. Whether the product is known as goods in the market and excisable.
4. Whether excise duty can be levied twice on the same item.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original regarding the classification of "Upset Forge" as an excisable product. The appellant argued that the product did not result in any marketable goods, shifting the burden of proof to the Department. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address whether the product was known in the market, a crucial aspect. Lack of evidence on marketability led to setting aside the order.

2. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as detailed technical information was provided to the Department years before the show-cause notice. The Tribunal agreed that the demand, except for the last few months, was time-barred due to the absence of willful suppression of facts for duty evasion.

3. The issue of marketability was crucial, with the appellant asserting that the product was not marketable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department failed to provide evidence on marketability, a key factor in determining excisability. The exhaustive technical information provided by the appellant supported the belief that no excisable goods were manufactured.

4. The appellant argued against double taxation on the final product if the "Upset Forge" was classified under Heading 8409.00. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal highlighted that excise duty cannot be levied twice on the same item. Misapplication of Interpretative Rules was noted, emphasizing the need to avoid double taxation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order due to lack of evidence on marketability, time-barred demands, and the need to prevent double taxation. The appeal succeeded based on these grounds.