Appellant's Custom Gates Not Liable for Excise Duty

The Tribunal held that goods fabricated by the appellant as parts of gates for irrigation projects were not liable to Central Excise duty as they were not marketable. The goods, made as per project specifications and not offered for sale in the market, did not satisfy the conditions of excisable goods. The Tribunal emphasized that marketability is essential for goods to be excisable, referencing previous case law and the Supreme Court's decision that goods must be capable of being sold. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order finding the goods liable to excise duty and allowed the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether goods fabricated by the appellant from job workers are liable to Central Excise duty as parts of gates for irrigation projects.
2. Whether the fabricated goods are excisable goods satisfying the conditions of excisable goods.
3. Whether the fabricated goods are marketable and thus liable to excise duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, regarding the liability of goods fabricated by the appellant as parts of gates for Central Excise duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision, examining if the activities amounted to manufacture and the applicability of the decision of the Karnataka High Court. The original authority concluded that the goods were liable to Central Excise duty as they were manufactured, movable, and marketable.

2. The appellant argued that the gate parts were made as per buyer specifications and satisfied the conditions of excisable goods before installation. The Tribunal noted that the goods were made as per project specifications and not regularly traded items, similar to the facts in the Karnataka High Court case. The High Court had held that goods must be marketable to be excisable, and in this case, the goods were not offered for sale in the market.

3. The original authority found the goods liable to excise duty based on their distinct name, character, and use after several manufacturing processes. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that marketability is a crucial factor for goods to be excisable. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision that goods must be capable of being sold to be considered excisable. As the specific gate parts were not bought or sold but fabricated for a particular project, they were not marketable. Citing previous case law and the lack of evidence of marketability, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals.

---