Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 651 - AT - Central ExciseMarketability and Excisability of Goods - Captive consumption - Whether the product “non-woven fabrics” was marketable and therefore excisable - Held that:- Goods were capable of being marketed and were therefore excisable and dutiable - The goods do have some compactness/tensile strength/dimensional stability - Compactness/tensile strength/dimensional stability of “non-woven fabrics” cleared from factory was much more than that of goods - Appellants had not submitted any literature to show for marketability compactness,/tensile strength/dimensional stability should exceed a particular limit. Valuation of Goods - Held that:- The goods were used Captively and were not comparable to goods cleared by them from their factory, value was to be determined as per Valuation Rules - Court directed the Commissioner to re-determine the value of goods as per Valuation Rules - While re-adjudicating the case, Commissioner should have considered issue of valuation of goods raised before Commissioner particularly when Department itself had determined the assessable value for the period on the basis 115% or 110% of cost of production under Valuation Rules - Commissioner should re-determine the duty liability after re-determining the value of impugned goods used captively as per Valuation Rules on the quantity of impugned goods equal to quantity of jute carpets cleared by them. Quantity of Fabrics - Held that:- Commissioner was directed to re-determine the duty on quantity equal to quantity of jute carpets cleared by them. Penalty - Held that:- Imposition of penalty to be considered by the Commissioner afresh after re-determination of duty - since duty amount was to be re-determined by the Commissioner on account of valuation as well as quantity of fabrics, imposition of penalty will depend on the duty re-determined. Commissioner will consider the imposition of penalty afresh after re-determination of duty - Commissioner had taken a view that assesses had withheld the fact that goods had dimensional stability which was sole criterion to be tested for marketability of goods in view of direction of CESTAT - This view of the Commissioner was not correct in as much as CESTAT had not given any such direction - case was remanded back to Commissioner for decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assesses - Appeal was disposed off by way of remand.
|