2005 (7) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal emphasizes marketability for excise classification, rejects Revenue appeals.

COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V Versus SHREE RAM TEXTILES & PROCESSING MILLS

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and rejected the appeals by Revenue. The processed fabrics were not ... Excisability - Marketability Issues:1. Interpretation of whether processed fabrics can be considered fully manufactured goods.2. Determination of the status of goods stored in Bonded Store Room (BSR) under Central Excise Rules.3. Evaluation of the marketability of goods based on the entry in the finishing room register.Analysis:1. The appeals filed by Revenue were disposed of collectively as the issue was the same across all cases. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the plea of the Respondents regarding the status of processed fabrics, stating that the Dy. Commissioner did not provide sufficient reasons for considering them fully manufactured goods. The mention of 'finishing room' in the RG1 register indicated that the goods were not 'finished goods,' leading to the proceedings being set aside. The Revenue argued that goods stored in the BSR should be deemed fully manufactured based on the entry, even if in a loose form. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the relevant date lacked the concept of BSR under Central Excise Rules. The absence of marketability and readiness for delivery rendered the goods non-excisable, and a mere entry in the finishing room register did not establish marketability. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and rejected the appeals by Revenue.2. The key contention revolved around the interpretation of goods stored in the BSR and their classification as fully manufactured. The Revenue's argument hinged on the entry in the BSR, indicating finished goods. However, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of the BSR concept on the relevant date and stressed that excisable goods must be marketable and ready for delivery. The lack of evidence regarding marketability rendered the goods ineligible for classification as fully manufactured, despite the entry in the finishing room register. This analysis led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the affirmation of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decision.3. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of marketability in determining the status of goods for excise classification. The mere presence of an entry in the finishing room register was deemed insufficient to establish marketability and readiness for delivery. The Tribunal emphasized that excisable goods must be in a marketable condition, which was not demonstrated in this case. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, as there was no compelling evidence to overturn the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the marketability of the goods in question.