1998 (9) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants fail to prove non-marketability of glass fiber rovings used captively, Tribunal sides with revenue

UP. TWIGA FIBER GLASS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MEERUT

UP. TWIGA FIBER GLASS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MEERUT - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 425 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether the rovings of glass fiber captively used for making chopped strand mats and Woven Rovings are liable to duty.2. Whether the rovings captively used by the appellants are marketable or not.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the rovings of glass fiber manufactured by the appellants and used captively for specific purposes are subject to duty. The appellants argue that the rovings they produce and use internally are not marketable, distinguishing them from rovings intended for sale. They assert that due to the specific characteristics of their rovings, such as yield, chemicals used, and manufacturing process, these rovings are not suitable for end products like saleable rovings. The revenue, however, contends that there is no distinction between rovings for sale and captively used rovings.2. The lower appellate authority relied on an extract from a book on glass fiber manufacturing to support the view that suitable rovings are necessary for making chopped strand mats. The authority concluded that since manufacturers of such mats always use suitable rovings as starting material, the rovings in question are marketable. The appellants challenge this finding, arguing that the suitability of rovings for their specific use is different from those intended for sale, as highlighted in their classification list. They rely on a Supreme Court judgment and assert that the burden of proof lies with the revenue to demonstrate the marketability of the rovings used captively.3. The contention regarding the marketability of the rovings used captively is further debated by both parties. The appellants stress that the onus is on the revenue to establish the marketability of the rovings, especially considering the specific parameters that differentiate captively used rovings from those intended for sale. The revenue, however, argues that since the appellants themselves admit that rovings are marketable, the burden shifts to them to prove the distinct features of captively used rovings that render them non-marketable.4. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal agrees with the revenue that the onus to prove the non-marketability of the rovings in question rests with the appellants. Since the appellants produce rovings that are acknowledged as marketable, they must demonstrate the unique characteristics of their captively used rovings that affect marketability. Without sufficient evidence to support their claim, the Tribunal finds in favor of the revenue and dismisses the appeal. The Tribunal emphasizes that the mere acknowledgment of differences in rovings by the Assistant Commissioner does not alter the marketability assessment of the captively used rovings.