1999 (5) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of duty on chimney shells and tanks manufactured by the appellants.
2. Marketability of chimney shells and tanks.
3. Adjudication of duty liability based on the process of manufacture and marketability.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the issue of the Revenue's intention to charge duty on chimney shells and tanks manufactured by the appellants. The process of manufacturing chimney shells and tanks was detailed, emphasizing the transformation of mild steel sheets into immovable structures. The appellants argued that chimney shells and tanks were not marketable goods but rather tailor-made immovable properties. They relied on previous tribunal judgments to support their position.

2. The marketability of chimney shells and tanks was a point of contention. The appellants contended that chimney shells were non-marketable as they were part of the chimney assembly, which was itself an immovable property. On the other hand, the JDR argued that chimney shells and tanks were separate identifiable commodities, thereby disputing their marketability. The JDR highlighted that the raw materials used were transformed into distinct products, indicating marketability.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the lower authority had not refuted the process of manufacture described by the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of marketability in determining excise duty liability, stating that goods must not only be manufactured but also marketable. It was observed that the fuel tank only existed as an immovable property, while the marketability of chimney shells was not substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no duty liability could be imposed on the appellants. Additionally, no penalty was deemed necessary based on the circumstances.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, providing them with consequential relief. The judgment underscored the significance of considering both the process of manufacture and marketability when determining excise duty liability on goods, ensuring a fair and thorough assessment in such matters.