2000 (5) TMI 901 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Marketability of wire rods used in the manufacture of aluminum wires.
2. Barred by limitation - show-cause notices issued beyond the normal period.
3. Financial position of the appellants.

Issue 1: The main issue in this case revolved around the marketability of wire rods used in the manufacture of aluminum wires. The appellants argued that the wire rods were not marketable as they were of shorter length and not suitable for commercial use. They presented certificates from reputable companies to support their claim. The Revenue contended that marketability is based on the capability of the product to be marketed, not just on actual marketing. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the certificates provided did not prove the incapability of marketing the wire rods. The appellants failed to demonstrate any reason why the wire rods could not be marketed, leading to a decision against them.

Issue 2: The appellants also raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the show-cause notices were issued beyond the normal period of six months. They pointed to a letter from 1989 regarding the import of aluminum ingots under duty-free licenses, indicating that the demand in question was time-barred. However, the Tribunal found that the letter did not significantly support the appellants' case. Additionally, the appellants had not maintained statutory records or provided clear classification lists, weakening their argument for the limitation defense.

Issue 3: The financial position of the appellants was another key consideration. The appellants' profit-making status was highlighted, with their profit before taxation in the latest financial year being substantial. Despite earlier losses, the appellants had shown profitability. The Revenue argued that the appellants should deposit the duty amount due to their financial stability. The Tribunal took into account the financial details and directed the appellants to deposit a specified amount towards duty within a set timeframe, while waiving penalties on certain directors.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue on the marketability issue, found the limitation defense insufficient, and considered the appellants' financial position in determining the deposit amount required. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue raised, ultimately resulting in a decision that balanced the interests of both parties involved.