TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether aluminium wire rods emerging in the manufacture of aluminium wires were marketable and therefore excisable; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked and whether separate penalties on the directors and manager under Rule 209A were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether aluminium wire rods emerging in the manufacture of aluminium wires were marketable and therefore excisable.
Analysis: The aluminium wire rods were specifically covered by sub-heading 7604.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Marketability, however, remains the test for excisability. The fact that the goods were not actually sold was not decisive; the relevant question was whether they were capable of being marketed. The record showed that the appellants themselves manufactured and used the wire rods, and also sent ingots to job workers for conversion into wire rods which were returned for use in manufacture. This established capability of marketing. The certificates relied upon only indicated that shorter rods were commercially inconvenient for drawing wires, not that the rods were incapable of being marketed.
Conclusion: The wire rods were marketable and hence excisable, and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked and whether separate penalties on the directors and manager under Rule 209A were sustainable.
Analysis: The appellants had not filed classification lists or maintained proper records of the wire rods. Their communication to the department did not disclose that the rods would be used in the manufacture of exempt aluminium wires. The omission to make a proper disclosure amounted to suppression of the material facts relevant to duty liability, justifying invocation of the longer limitation period. As to the individual penalties, the adjudicatory record did not disclose sufficient basis for separate penalties on the directors and the manager under Rule 209A.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked, but the separate penalties on the directors and manager were unsustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld, the penalty on the appellant firm was reduced, and the individual penalties on the other appellants were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise purposes, marketability depends on the capability of the goods to be marketed, not on actual sale, and non-disclosure of a material duty-affecting use of goods can justify the extended limitation period.
TaxTMI 
