2005 (2) TMI 122 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court confirms excisability of tyre bead wire ring, citing lack of evidence.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the excisability of the tyre bead wire ring, emphasizing the Department's failure to prove ... Marketability - Evidence as to market - whether there is any material on record to show that the duty paid by M/s. Hindustan Tyre Company was in respect of identical goodsability of goods - Held that:- Except for the statement made by the Commissioner, in his order, no other material could be shown to us that the product of M/s. Hindustan Tyre Company was an identical product - Tribunal has rightly not placed any reliance on the affidavit of Shri Surinder Singh and Shri Om Parkash Pahwa. The burden to show marketability is on the Department - No reason to interfere - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether an intermediate product, namely, tyre bead wire ring, is excisable to duty.Analysis:The central issue in this case pertains to the excisability of an intermediate product, specifically the tyre bead wire ring manufactured by the Respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially held that the product was excisable to duty based on various factors, including the duty payment by another company on similar goods, an affidavit from a partner of a rubber industries firm, and supplementary classification lists. However, crucial witnesses like Shri Surinder Singh and Shri Om Parkash Pahwa did not undergo cross-examination despite a request. The Commissioner distinguished a previous Tribunal decision by emphasizing proof of marketability.The Tribunal, in its reversal of the Commissioner's decision, highlighted the absence of concrete evidence regarding marketability, especially noting that Shri Surinder Singh did not appear for cross-examination. Additionally, the Tribunal pointed out discrepancies in the duty paid by M/s. Hindustan Tyre Company and the lack of evidence supporting the identical nature of the goods. The Tribunal's stance was that the burden of proving marketability rested with the Department, which had not been adequately discharged.Upon review, the Supreme Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning and decision. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving marketability lay with the Department, and in this case, insufficient evidence had been presented to establish the excisability of the tyre bead wire ring. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's ruling and subsequently dismissed the Civil Appeals, with no costs imposed on either party.