2000 (1) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal directs Commissioner to reassess Notification benefits within six months, stressing thorough reconsideration.

The Tribunal set aside the original order and directed the Commissioner to reassess the issues of Notification benefits and the Larger period invocation ... Excisability of manufactured articles - marketability as test of goods - classification under Heading 6807 - invocation of the larger period - eligibility for benefit of site exemption notificationsExcisability of manufactured articles - marketability as test of goods - classification under Heading 6807 - The articles of cement produced by the appellants are goods and are classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that earlier decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal (including A.P. State Electricity Board and Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corpn.) govern the question and negatived the appellants' contention that the RCC boxes and slabs were not goods or not marketable. On that basis the plea that the items were not liable to excise as non-goods was rejected and the items were held classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00. [Paras 6]Appellants' plea that the items are not goods is negatived; items are goods classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00.Invocation of the larger period - Whether the larger period (extended limitation) is invokable was not finally decided and is remanded for fresh consideration. - HELD THAT: - The appellants had pleaded bona fide belief and prior communication to the department; the Commissioner relied on incomplete disclosure. The Tribunal concluded that, in view of other findings and in particular the need to reconsider applicability of notifications, the question of invoking the larger period requires fresh examination and remit to the Commissioner for reconsideration in the light of relevant Supreme Court authority (H.M.M. Ltd.) and the facts. [Paras 7, 9]Remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration of the question whether the larger period is invokable.Eligibility for benefit of site exemption notifications - Claims under Notification No. 13/88 and Notification No. 59/90 were not finally adjudicated on merits and are remanded for de novo consideration, but the Commissioner's rejection of the benefit of Notification No. 13/88 for failure to observe Central Excise formalities was held unjustified. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that a notification exempting goods cannot be denied on the ground that Central Excise formalities were not observed, and therefore the Commissioner's rejection of Notification No. 13/88 on that ground was not justified. As to Notification No. 59/90 (site exemption), the Tribunal noted the contrary finding in Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corpn. and the Board's clarificatory circular, but left the ultimate determination to the Commissioner to reconsider the matter de novo in the light of those authorities and the record. [Paras 8, 9]Set aside the Commissioner's denial of Notification No. 13/88 on the ground of non-observance of formalities; remand notifications issue (including applicability of Notification No. 59/90) to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.Final Conclusion: Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration of (a) invocation of the larger period and (b) entitlement to the site exemption notifications in light of the Tribunal judgment and Board circular, with a direction to decide the matter after hearing within six months from receipt of the order. Issues Involved:1. Whether the items manufactured are goods and marketableRs.2. Can the Larger period be invokedRs.3. Should the benefit of Notifications be extended to the itemsRs.Analysis:1. Goods Classification:The appeal concerned duty demand on articles of cement manufacture. The Commissioner classified the items as goods under Heading 6807, rejecting the appellants' argument that the items were not marketable goods. The appellants cited judgments to support their claim, but the Commissioner held that the items were sold to railways and, therefore, constituted goods. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification based on previous judgments and dismissed the appellants' argument against the goods classification.2. Larger Period Invocation:The appellants contested the invocation of the Larger period, claiming they provided information and acted in good faith. The Commissioner disagreed, citing lack of clearance details. The Tribunal decided to remand this aspect for further consideration along with the issue of Notification benefits, indicating a need for a reevaluation of the Larger period invocation.3. Notification Benefits:Regarding Notification No. 13/88 and No. 59/90-C.E., the Commissioner denied benefits based on non-compliance with Central Excise formalities and the specific application of the Notification to building construction, excluding bridges. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, citing precedents and a Board's Circular. The Tribunal set aside the order, remanding the case for a fresh review considering the Tribunal's judgment and the Circular, emphasizing a reevaluation of the Notification benefits.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the original order and directed the Commissioner to reassess the issues of Notification benefits and the Larger period invocation within six months. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of reevaluating the Notification benefits in light of relevant judgments and Circulars, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of the case.