9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es as also synthetic organic pigments. They were issued three show cause notices, one on 30-9-1983, another on 2-2-1984 and the third on 4-6-1984 for the period March 1983 to August 1983, October 1983 to December 1983 and February 1984 to March 1984 respectively raising demand of Rs. 36,653.82 for the first period, Rs. 8,716.84 for the second period and Rs. 968.63 for the third period. The show cause notices alleged that the appellants had wrongly availed of exemption under Notification No. 44/82 in relation to Copper Phthalocyanine (C.P.C.) captively consumed by them for the manufacture of other dyes during the said period for which they were not entitled to. The appellants contested the demands in their reply to the show cause notices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consumption could not be considered as removal from the place of manufacture and the value thereof cannot be taken into account for the purpose of working out the aggregate value of the clearances for home consumption; that if the value of CPC captively consumed and the finished products were taken into account it would create duplication or double account of the value resulting into inflation of the value of clearances and as such if the value of captively consumed goods is not taken into account, the value of clearances of S.O. dyes would be less than Rs. 15 lacs and the exemption is correctly availed. 4. The Assistant Collector agreed with the contention of the appellants that the amount of duty demanded under show cause notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Valuation Rules provided that while determining the value on the basis of comparable goods the proper officer who makes adjustment as would appear to him reasonable taking into consideration all the relevant factors and in particular the difference in the natural characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of comparable goods. The Assistant Collector reduced value of CPC consumed captively at Rs. 65/- instead of Rs. 70/- which was the value at which the CPC was sold to outside customers. 5. Against the order of the Assistant Collector the present appellants had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned order upheld the finding of the Assistant Collector. Being aggrieved with the said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) is on the Department. It is their contention that there is nothing in the order of the Assistant Collector or in the order of the Collector (Appeals) to show that the Department has collected any evidence to establish that CPC in the lump form was a marketable commodity. The mere fact that certain goods answer the tariff description of a tariff item in the erstwhile Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act would not be sufficient to determine the excisability of the item. 7. For the Department, Shri J. M. Sharma, ld. JDR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. The first question for consideration is whether CPC is a fully manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the question of payment of duty was taken into consideration its value for purposes of ascertaining aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 44/82 did not arise. The question whether a particular product is at intermediate stage or has reached the final stage for purposes of marketability is a question of fact. Notification No. 44/82 exempted certain synthetic organic dyes and other synthetic derivatives used in dying processes under Tariff Item 14D in respect of the first clearance of the said goods for home consumption being the aggregate value of clearances did not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs. The appellants have not disputed that their product CPC even in lump form is not a product falling under Tariff Item 14D. The Assistant Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etability in the sense that the goods are known in the market or are capable of being sold and purchased in the market is essential. The Department has not been able to produce any material to show that CPC in lump form captively used by the appellants was capable of being sold and purchased in that form. We therefore find considerable merit in the appellants contention that the mere fact that the appellant s product satisfied the descripton of goods under Tariff Item 14D would not suffice to attract duty liability. Reliance placed on amended Rules 9 and 49 by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order also does not appear to be correct in the circumstances of the case. The question in the instant case is not whether there was removal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
