GILLOORAM GAURISHANKER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appeals are being disposed of by a common Order as they arise out of the same impugned Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. Vide the impugned Order, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,24,818.54 against the appellants, M/s. Gillooram Gaurishankar and has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 9.25 lakh upon the appellants. Apart from the above, penalties of Rs. 5.00 lakh, Rs. 10.00 lakh, Rs. 2.00 lakh and Rs. 2.00 lakh have been imposed upon Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director, Shri Sanjay Dalmia, Director, Shri Sunil Dalmia, Director and Shri K.K. Jha, Manager respectively, under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as under : -

(3.) SHRI B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the appellants submits that in the process of converting Aluminium Ingots, the same were melted and cast into small pieces, which were further rolled into Rods of 15/25 long. The Rods so produced were then drawn into Wires. It is the contention of the learned Consultant that these small pieces of Wire Rods are not marketable inasmuch as the length of the Wire Rods, which emerged in their Unit in a continuous process, is to the tune of 15 to 25. Such Wire Rods are not commercially viable for utilisation in the manufacture of Aluminium Wires inasmuch as if they are joined frequently at the time of drawing of Wire on account of their short length, there is a possibility of breakage of the Wires. It has been further pointed out that to be compatible for drawing, Wire Rods are required to be of substantial lengths, generally more than 1.5 M.T. to 2.5 M.T. in case of Aluminium. As such, it has been strongly contended that such Wire Rods are not marketable and hence not excisable in spite of their having been mentioned in Central Excise Tariff. In support of his above submission, the appellants referred to two Certificates from M/s. BALCO and M/s. NALCO which are to the effect that it is not commercially possible to draw Wire out of the Aluminium Wire Rods of shorter length. Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant further submits that the appellants have taken a definite stand before the adjudicating authority, that the Wire Rods are not marketable. In spite of that, the Revenue has not given even a single example for marketability of the product in question. Relying upon various Supreme Courts decisions, Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant submits that the marketability of the product is the basic criterion for levy of duty on any product and the onus for the same lies upon the Revenue, which the Revenue has not discharged in the present case.