Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. However, before proceeding to determine the correctness of the classification adopted in the impugned order and the appropriateness of the method resorted to for computation of value, the jurisdiction of Central Excise Act, 1944 over the impugned goods must bear looking into. Our reason for doing so are several of which not the least is the foundation of the impugned proceedings: denial of exemption, otherwise extended to 'intermediate goods', on manufacture of 'impregnated paper' upon undeniability of 'laminated boards' to exemption from duties of central excise rests on inevitability of levy on excisable goods. The adjudicating authority concluded so from a search of the 'world wide web', its existence even if under controlled atmospheric conditions for a while and the imports effected by M/s E/1093/2012 & Ors Decorative Laminates (India) Pvt Ltd - whether that meets the criteria of marketability and, thereby, of excisability was the question that should have been answered. With the statute offering no assistance beyond '(d) "excisable goods" means goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt;' in section 2 of Central Excise Act, 1944, that is, doubtlessly, a judicial exercise and it devolves on us to ascertain approximation of the finding to legal and proper.

9. Furthermore, he argued that, in the absence of an undertaking by the appellant to discharge the duty liability, if any, devolving on a 'job worker', it is the de facto manufacturer who is liable for compliance with such statutory liability and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Servo-Med Industries Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (318) ELT E/1093/2012 & Ors 578 (SC)] and in Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2006 (197) ELT 151 (SC)] and of the Tribunal in Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I [2018 (364) ELT 945 (Tri-LB)] and in Desh Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri)].

10. Learned Authorized Representative narrated the causes that led to issue of notices and contended that the claim of lack of 'shelf life' was belied by the statements of the production head and that even limited 'shelf life' sufficed for levy of duty as held by the Tribunal in Garware Marine Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2012 (279) ELT 152 (Tri)]. It was further submitted by him that ownership and control of the materials, and deployment thereof, remained with the appellant besides which an undertaking had been furnished, in terms of notification 214/86-CE dated 25th March 1986, by the appellant to Kolhapur Central Excise; consequently, duty liability devolved on the M/s Vilsons Particle Board Industries Ltd. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Tribunal in Desh Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2000 (122) ELT 481(Tri)].