Tariff-listed copper products are presumed excisable, while job-work duty relief follows Notification 214/86-C.E. conditions.

Untrimmed copper and copper-alloy sheets and circles described under the tariff were treated as excisable and marketable goods because a tariff entry creates a rebuttable presumption of excisability, which the challengers did not displace with evidence. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was held to operate according to its plain terms in job-work arrangements by exempting the job worker and shifting duty responsibility to the principal supplier, subject to compliance with the notification's conditions. The SSI exemption position also required period-wise examination, because differing clearances and applicable notifications could not be assessed on a blanket basis. The matter therefore called for fresh, fact-specific reconsideration under the relevant notifications.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether untrimmed sheets and circles of copper/copper alloys were excisable and marketable goods; (ii) whether the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was available to the job worker and whether any duty liability, if any, lay on the principal supplier; (iii) whether the exemption position under the relevant SSI notifications and the differing periods of clearances required separate examination.

Issue (i): Whether untrimmed sheets and circles of copper/copper alloys were excisable and marketable goods.

Analysis: The goods were described by the appellants themselves as falling under Heading 74.09 of the Central Excise Tariff. Mere assertion that they were not marketable was insufficient when no supporting material was produced. An item specifically mentioned in the tariff carries an initial rebuttable presumption of excisability, and the party disputing excisability must rebut that presumption by evidence. The withdrawal of one exemption notification did not make the goods non-excisable; it only affected exemption.

Conclusion: The goods were treated as excisable, and the challenge on the ground of non-marketability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was available to the job worker and whether any duty liability, if any, lay on the principal supplier.

Analysis: Notification No. 214/86-C.E. expressly shifts the incidence of duty in job-work situations by exempting the job worker and placing responsibility on the supplier of the raw material or semi-finished goods, subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions and procedure. The notification had to be applied according to its plain language, and the fact that excise responsibility normally rests on the manufacturer did not override the specific exemption scheme created by the notification.

Conclusion: The job worker could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. merely because it was a job-work arrangement, and the matter had to be examined in light of the conditions cast on the supplier.

Issue (iii): Whether the exemption position under the relevant SSI notifications and the differing periods of clearances required separate examination.

Analysis: The exemption under the SSI notification depended on the relevant period and the applicable notification in force. Since different parties and periods were involved, the authorities were required to examine each case on its own facts rather than by a blanket approach. The record indicated that period-wise differences and the interplay of the notifications had not been properly considered.

Conclusion: The matter required fresh, period-specific adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained in its existing form, and the dispute had to be reconsidered afresh by the adjudicating authority on the basis of the applicable notifications, the job-work arrangement, and the differing factual periods.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff-described product is presumed excisable unless rebutted by evidence, and where a notification specifically exempts job work and casts responsibility on the supplier, that statutory allocation must be given effect according to its plain terms and the conditions of the notification.

---