9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it cannot be marketed. A shelf-life of 2 to 3 days is sufficiently long enough for a product to be commercially marketed. Shelf-life of a product would not be a relevant factor to test the marketability of a product unless it is shown that the product has absolutely no shelf- life or the shelf-life of the product is such that it is not capable of being brought or sold during that shelf-life. - 5829 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2010 - Dr Mukundakam Sharma And Anil R Dave JJ., JUDGEMENT Per: Dr Mukundakam Sharma J.: 1. The short question which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is whether "Vitamin A Acetate Crude" and "Vitamin A Palmitate" (h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices issued to the appellant, the Commissioner confirmed the liability to duty for the goods manufactured and cleared between December 1989 and February 1995 and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The relevant portion of the finding of the Commissioner is reproduced herein : "SOURCE: MARTINDALE - THE EXTRA PHARMACOPOEIA From the above it can be seen that this is a commercially known and marketable product. Merely because it is unstable at room temperature does not exclude it from commercial marketability. Intermediate goods of distinctly and differently known in the commercial sense of the word constitute manufacture under Section 3 of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. Vitamin A acetate crude and Vitamin A Palmitate are differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the products in question. 7. So far the other issue with regard to demands being barred by limitation was concerned, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice dated 29.12.1994 would be barred by limitation for the period from February 1993 to October 1993 but so far other three notices relating to the period November 1994 to April 1994, May 1994 to October 1994 and November 1994 to February 1995 were concerned, they were held to be within limitation. The aforesaid findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are under challenge in this appeal on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that crude vitamin A, on which duty is being demanded by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent contending, inter alia, that the products in question admittedly retain its properties for a period of 1- 2 days and therefore it is a marketable product. He also submitted marketability of the said product is a finding of fact, having been so decided by the Tribunal as also by the Commissioner and therefore, such a finding of fact should not be disturbed unless the same is perverse. Reliance was placed on T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd v. CCE, Madurai reported in 2004 (116) ELT 433; A.P. State Electricity Board v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1994 (70) ELT 3. 10. The taxable event for the levy of excise duty is the manufacture of goods. The term "manufacture" is of wide import and may include various activities and processes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The orders passed by the Commissioner as also the Tribunal clearly demonstrate that the product in question is commercially known and is capable of being marketed. The facts that the appellants have chosen not to sell the product in question does not mean that the same is not capable of being marketed. The matter can be looked from another angle. There is also no dispute that the said product in question is used in the manufacture of the animal feed supplement sold by the Appellant. Had the Appellant not used the product in question, they would have had to buy the same from the market to manufacture and sell the Animal Feed Supplement. This clearly shows that a marketable product emerges. 12. Furthermore, in dealing with a question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993 to October 1993 dated 29.12.1994 was barred by limitation, but in so far as other three notices relating to the period November 1994 to April 1994, May 1994 to October 1994 and November 1994 to February 1995 were concerned, they were held to be within limitation. It is also disclosed from the records that the appellant did not disclose to the revenue that the assessee was manufacturing the aforesaid product. Assessee also did not maintain an account and paid no duty on this. Therefore, the Commissioner, Central Excise as also the Tribunal were justified in holding that the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 could be invokable. We find no reason to interfere with the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
