Exempted goods remain excisable; their value counts toward turnover limits, and power-free exemption must be strictly proved.

Exempted goods remain excisable goods because exemption from duty does not alter their statutory character under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On that basis, their value was includible in computing the annual clearance limit under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., and the assessee failed to satisfy the turnover and capital investment conditions for the exemption. The claimant also failed to prove that G.I. buckets were manufactured without the aid of power, as the affidavits were inconsistent with the factory evidence and the burden of proof lay on the assessee. The duty demand was sustained, the penalty was reduced, and confiscation of land, machinery and building was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exempted goods cease to be excisable goods; (ii) whether the value of exempted goods is includible while computing the annual clearance limit of Rs. 30 lakhs under the exemption notification; (iii) whether G.I. Buckets were manufactured without the aid of power so as to qualify for the power-free exemption.

Issue (i): Whether exempted goods cease to be excisable goods.

Analysis: Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 defines excisable goods by reference to goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to duty of excise. Goods do not lose that character merely because an exemption notification removes the duty. Exemption has to be strictly construed, and the existence of exemption does not alter the basic statutory description of the goods as excisable goods.

Conclusion: Exempted goods do not cease to be excisable goods. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of exempted goods is includible while computing the annual clearance limit of Rs. 30 lakhs under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. required satisfaction of the turnover ceiling and the capital investment condition. Since exempted goods continued to be excisable goods, their value was includible in the aggregate clearances for the relevant financial year. On the facts found, the clearances exceeded the prescribed limit and the capital investment also exceeded the ceiling.

Conclusion: The value of exempted goods was includible, and the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether G.I. Buckets were manufactured without the aid of power so as to qualify for the power-free exemption.

Analysis: The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the goods were manufactured without the aid of power. The affidavits relied upon were found insufficient and inconsistent with the admitted circumstances, including the factory set-up, machinery, power connection, and production capacity. The assessee failed to prove eligibility for the exemption meant for goods produced without the aid of power.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove manufacture without the aid of power, and the exemption was unavailable. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty was sustained, the exemption claims failed, and the penalty was reduced while the confiscation of land, machinery and building was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods remain excisable even when exempt from duty, and exemption notifications must be strictly proved and construed; for turnover-based exemptions, exempted goods may be counted where the statutory description of excisable goods remains unchanged, and the burden lies on the claimant to establish every condition of the exemption.

---