1. Appeals against a Tribunal decision concerning the exigibility of goods to excise duty. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1025
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE, APPELLANT
Versus
PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS, RESPONDENT.
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1947 OF 1990). WITH COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR, APPELLANT
Versus
KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD., RESPONDENT. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8175 OF 1995).
Civil Appeals No. 1945 of 1990 with No. 8175 of 1995,
decided on July 29, 1997 (On appeal from the judgment reported at (1990) 48 ELT 539 (CEGAT)).
To determine the exigibility of goods to excise duty, the adjudicating authority must record clear findings of fact regarding the nature of the manufacturing process and the resulting end product.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise - Exigibility of goods to excise duty - Necessity of factual findings - To determine whether goods are exigible to excise duty, there must be a clear finding of fact regarding the nature of the process and the end product by which the goods come into existence. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed against the decisions of the Tribunal concerning the exigibility of certain goods to excise duty. It was observed that neither the Tribunal nor the authorities below had recorded the requisite facts regarding the nature of the manufacturing process or the end product to determine the tax liability.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of recorded facts regarding the process and the end product precluded a decision on whether the goods were exigible to excise duty.
Issues: Whether a decision on the exigibility of goods to excise duty can be made without clear findings of fact regarding the manufacturing process and the resulting end product.
Ratio Decidendi: It is essential for the adjudicating authority to record clear findings of fact about the nature of the process and the end product to enable a legal decision on the exigibility of goods to excise duty. (Para 1)
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute regarding whether specific goods are exigible to excise duty. (Para 1 )
3. The Tribunal and lower authorities failed to record requisite facts regarding the nature of the manufacturing process and the end product. (Para 1 )
4. Determination of excise duty exigibility requires clear findings of fact regarding the manufacturing process and the resulting end product. (Para 1 )
5. Appeals allowed and matters remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. What factual findings are necessary to determine the exigibility of goods to excise duty?
There must be a clear finding of fact regarding the nature of the process and the end product by which the goods come into existence. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. These appeals are against the decision of the Tribunal. We find that the requisite facts on the basis of which the controversy between the parties relating to exigibility of the goods to excise duty arose have not been recorded either by the Tribunal or any of the authorities below it. It is appropriate that in respect of each item or goods for which excise duty has been demanded, there should be a clear finding of fact about the nature of the process and of the end product (sic) by which the goods comes into existence, to enable a decision on the point whether the goods are exigible to excise duty. The appropriate course, therefore, is to remit these matters to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
2. We direct accordingly. The appeals are allowed.
