1999 (12) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on websol and crushed stones
- Registration requirement under Central Excises Act
- Marketability of goods for excise duty
- Extended period of limitation
- Benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90-C.E.

Duty Demand on Websol and Crushed Stones:
The appellants appealed against an order confirming duty demand on websol and crushed stones, along with a penalty. The appellants were manufacturing PCC websol panels without proper registration. The Revenue department conducted visits to their premises, leading to the detention of websol and the discovery of crushed stone manufacturing activities. The Collector issued a show cause notice for duty payment, which the appellants contested, claiming exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. The Collector upheld the duty demand, prompting the appeal.

Registration Requirement under Central Excises Act:
The appellants were found manufacturing goods without the necessary registration under Section 6 of the Central Excises Act, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition by the Collector. This non-compliance was a significant factor in the case.

Marketability of Goods for Excise Duty:
The appellants argued that the test of marketability of goods was not adequately considered by the Collector before imposing excise duty. The appellants contended that the websol and crushed stones were not marketable and were specifically prepared for their construction activities. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the Collector failed to establish the marketability of the goods, a crucial factor for excise duty imposition.

Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation, asserting that there was no suppression of material facts by them. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the Revenue department was aware of the appellants' activities well before the show cause notice was issued. The Collector's failure to address this issue and justify the extended limitation period led to the appeal's acceptance.

Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 59/90-C.E.:
The appellants sought the benefit of an exemption notification, which the Collector denied without thorough examination. The Tribunal found that the Collector did not adequately consider the applicability of the notification, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity to both parties for further proceedings.