Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2001 DIGILAW 869 (SC)

Collector Of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Man Structurals LTD.

2001-04-19

N.S.HEGDE, S.P.BHARUCHA, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, V.N.KHARE, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2001
ORDER Delay condoned. 2. The leaned Solicitor General appearing for the Department fairly states that the Department does not question the correctness of the judgments in Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise1, and Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr.2, insofar as the issue of marketability is concerned. 3. Tariff Item 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff covers structures and parts of structures, as therein stated (which are, for convenience, referred to as "structurals"). 4. It was for the Tribunal to determine, as a fact, whether the structurals that the Department sought to make exigible to excise duty in the various appeals before it were new, identifiable goods which were produced as a result of manufacture or processes and which were marketable. Depending upon its conclusion on these aspects in each of the appeals before it, it was for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the goods in question in each of these appeals were exigible to excise duty. 5. In the judgment and order of the Tribunal that is under challenge the Tribunal has failed to consider the facts of even a single of the appeals before it. It has proceeded simply upon the basis that structurals are not exigible to excise duty. It has failed to appreciate that there is a tariff entry which makes structurals exigible to excise duty and that they are so exigible, provided that they are new identifiable goods that are the result of manufacture or processes and they are marketable. 6. It, thus, becomes necessary to set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal under challenge and remand the appeals to the Tribunal for being heard and disposed of afresh, bearing in mind what we have stated above. All contentions may be raised before the Tribunal by either party. Liberty is given to produce additional evidence. 7. The Civil appeals are allowed accordingly. 8. No order as to costs. (N.K.R.) Appeals allowed accordingly. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Collector of Central Excise v. Man Structurals Ltd., 2001(4) Supreme 591 : 2001 (130) ELT 401 : 2001 (75) ECC 712 00032