TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether concrete cubes manufactured for testing the strength of concrete and subsequently used within the factory premises were marketable and liable to central excise duty under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985; (ii) whether, in relation to an order passed by an Additional Collector before 14-5-1992, the Collector (Appeals) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Issue (i): Whether concrete cubes manufactured for testing the strength of concrete and subsequently used within the factory premises were marketable and liable to central excise duty under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985.
Analysis: The cubes were manufactured only for testing the compressive strength of the concrete mix used in making sleepers. After testing, they were not capable of being marketed. Their later use in the factory premises as flower pots did not alter their character or make them marketable. Since marketability is essential for dutiability, the goods did not satisfy the test for levy.
Conclusion: The cubes were not liable to central excise duty and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether, in relation to an order passed by an Additional Collector before 14-5-1992, the Collector (Appeals) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Analysis: The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was amended by Notification No. 11/92-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14-5-92, after which an appeal against an Additional Collector's order lay to the Collector (Appeals). For orders passed before that date, the appeal lay to the Tribunal. As the impugned order of the Additional Collector was dated 25-2-92, the Collector (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Conclusion: The Collector (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the pre-14-5-1992 order of the Additional Collector.
Final Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the assessee's relief on merits and also recorded that the first appellate forum lacked jurisdiction, resulting in rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are not marketable after testing do not become excisable merely because they are later used within the factory; for pre-14-5-1992 orders of an Additional Collector, the first appeal did not lie to the Collector (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
