2017 (12) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Excisability/marketibility - stock of goods lying the finishing room - case of Revenue is that the goods that were lying in the finished room were not semi-finished fabrics that should have been cleared on payment of duty under the regime of normal assessment and not under section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - compounded levy scheme - Held that - mere entry in RG1 register of goods in the finished room did not render goods marketable - it is seen that no evidence of marketability of the goods and therefore its excisability has been produced - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Duty liability on stock of goods
2. Interpretation of Central Excise Act, 1944
3. Application of compounded levy scheme
4. Definition of 'goods' under notification no. 16/2001-CE(NT)
5. Marketability of goods for excise duty
6. Maintenance of RG-1 Register

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the duty liability on the stock of goods held by the appellant on a specific date. The dispute concerns the duty liability on different categories of fabrics present in the store room and finishing room. The appellant had discharged duty on one category but not on the other, leading to a demand raised by the revenue authorities. The contention was whether the goods in the finishing room were liable to duty as finished goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly regarding the application of the compounded levy scheme. The compounded levy scheme had undergone changes over time, with the stock of finished goods required to be declared and duty discharged as per the reintroduced scheme. The revenue authorities argued that the goods in the finishing room were indeed finished goods and hence liable to duty, a decision upheld by the appellate authority.

3. The appellant, on the other hand, contested the duty liability by relying on the definition of 'goods' as per a specific notification. They argued that the goods in the finishing room had not undergone certain processes to be considered marketable and, therefore, not liable to excise duty. They also highlighted the procedural aspects of accounting for goods in the absence of clear provisions in the statutory records.

4. The issue of marketability of goods for excise duty purposes was crucial in determining the duty liability. The appellant referenced relevant judicial decisions to support their argument that goods must be marketable to attract excise duty. They emphasized that until certain processes were completed, the goods could not be considered fully manufactured and, hence, not excisable.

5. The maintenance of the RG-1 Register also played a significant role in the case. Both parties presented arguments based on entries in the register to support their respective positions regarding the excisability of the goods in question. The Tribunal's decision considered the lack of evidence regarding the marketability of the goods and set aside the earlier order, allowing the appeal based on the absence of proof of excisability.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision, delivered on 14/11/2017, focused on the lack of evidence regarding the marketability of the goods in the finishing room, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The case highlights the importance of clear definitions, procedural compliance, and evidentiary support in determining excise duty liabilities on stock goods.

← Previous Next →