2000 (8) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Levying central excise duty on untrimmed sheets/circles of copper manufactured and captively consumed by M/s. Everest Metals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Central Excise Duty on Untrimmed Sheets/Circles:
The appeal filed by M/s. Everest Metals raised the question of whether central excise duty is applicable to untrimmed sheets/circles of copper manufactured and consumed by them. The Appellants argued that the trimmed and untrimmed sheets/circles fall under the same heading and are exempted from duty under specific notifications. They contended that untrimmed sheets/circles are not inputs for the manufacture of trimmed sheets/circles and are not marketable products. The Department, however, asserted that the marketability of the products is essential for duty imposition and that captive consumption does not negate marketability. Various legal precedents were cited by both parties to support their arguments.

2. Marketability of the Impugned Products:
The Appellants, represented by a learned Consultant, emphasized that the untrimmed sheets/circles were not marketable as they were not sold and were solely consumed internally. They argued that the burden of proving marketability lies with the Department, and since the Appellants did not raise the issue of marketability before the lower authorities, it cannot be introduced at a later stage. The Department, on the other hand, contended that marketability is a crucial factor for duty imposition, and the mere fact that the products were not sold does not negate their marketability. Legal references were made to support the arguments regarding marketability.

3. Decision and Ruling of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri V.K. Agrawal, analyzed the submissions from both sides. It was noted that the Appellants did not raise the issue of marketability at earlier stages of adjudication and appeal. As marketability was not contested earlier, the Appellants could not introduce it as a new argument at the Tribunal level. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including the Lohia Sheet Products case, to establish the importance of proving marketability for excisability. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Appellants had not provided evidence to show that the untrimmed sheets/circles were not marketable. As the products were made of metal and there was no evidence of non-marketability, the duty was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The Tribunal also highlighted the applicability of Notification No. 134/94-C.E. in the duty imposition on the impugned products.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision upheld the imposition of central excise duty on untrimmed sheets/circles of copper manufactured and consumed by M/s. Everest Metals, emphasizing the importance of proving marketability for excisability and rejecting the appeal due to the lack of evidence supporting the non-marketability of the products.