2000 (7) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty on UF & PF resins consumed captively.
2. Benefit of Notification 217/86 denied.
3. Classification of blockboards.
4. Excisability of PF & UF resins.
5. Marketability of PF & UF resins.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns the confirmation of duty on UF & PF resins consumed captively by the appellants for a specific period. The duty was confirmed by denying them the benefit of Notification 217/86 due to the clearance of blockboards without payment of duty. The advocate for the appellants argued that duty on blockboards was not paid during the relevant period due to a classification dispute, which was later resolved by the Supreme Court. Appeals were filed against the demand of duties, and for a certain period, blockboards were cleared with duty payment. Therefore, the basis for denying the benefit of the notification was no longer valid, and the appellants should be entitled to it.

2. The issue of the benefit of Notification 217/86 being denied to the appellants was a key point of contention. The advocate highlighted that since duty on blockboards was now payable and had been paid for a certain period, the grounds for denying the notification benefit were no longer applicable. This argument formed a crucial part of the appellants' case for seeking relief in the matter.

3. Another legal issue raised was the classification of blockboards and the subsequent duty payments. The advocate argued that due to the duty payment on blockboards for a specific period, the Revenue's grievances regarding the non-payment of duty were no longer valid. This aspect was crucial in determining the appellants' eligibility for the benefit of Notification 217/86.

4. The excisability of PF & UF resins was also a significant point of discussion. The advocate contended that these resins were not excisable goods due to their non-marketability and short shelf life. Reference was made to a judgment of the Guwahati High Court, which held that certain resin solutions used for manufacturing plywood were not liable for excise duty. This argument added a layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the excisability of the resins in question.

5. The issue of marketability of PF & UF resins played a crucial role in the judgment. The Guwahati High Court's decision was cited to support the argument that these resins were non-excisable due to their non-marketability. The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the High Court, concluded that if goods are not marketable, no excise duty can be levied on them. This finding influenced the final decision to set aside the impugned order and grant relief to the appellants based on the non-excisability of the resins.