M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR on 24 February 2005

A

MIS. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALEXCISE, JAIPUR ·

B

FEBRUARY 24, 2005

[~.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Central' Excises and Salt Act, 1944 :

'Silver Chloride '-Declared as excisable goods-Assessee claiming C exemption under Notification No. 217186-CE dt. 2.4.1986-Held, Revenue having failed to prove marketability of the item produced by assessee during the relevant period, question of applicability of the notification has become academic, and is kept open.

D

On the question whether in the event of silver chloride being declared as .excisable goods the assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.1986.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD : In view of the judgment in the conjoint Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability that the department had failed to prove marketability the department had failed to prove marketability department had failed to prove marketability had failed to prove marketability to prove marketability prove marketability of silver chloride produced in the factory of the assessee, duri11.g the relevant period, the question of applicability of the said notification during that period has become academic and is kept open. (399-C-D)

E 430 of 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability that the department had failed to prove marketability the department had failed to prove marketability department had failed to prove marketability had failed to prove marketability to prove marketability prove marketability F

Mis. Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, (2005) 2 SCR 391, relied on.

CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3991 of200l..

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the Central Excise, G Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in F.O. No. 61 200 l-C in A. No. E/2164 of 2000-C.

V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, M.P. Devnath and V. Balachandran for the Appellant.

R. Venkataramani, A.Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma, Ashok Panigrahi, A Ms.V. Vijaylakshmi, P. Parmeswaran and B.K. Prasad, with him for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in this B civil appeal filed by the assessee under section 35L(b) of the Central.Excise Act, l 944 is whether in the event of the silver chloride being declared "excisable goods", the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2.4.1986.

In view of our judgment in the conjoint civil appeal No. 430 of 2000 C in the case of the same assessee holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of silver chloride produced in the factory of the assessee, during the relevant period(s), the question of applicability of the said notification during" that period has become academic. In future, if the department succeeds in proving that silver chloride produced .in the factory D of the assessee as "excisable goods" in terms of manufacture and marketability and if the assessee intends to take the l;>enefit of the said notification, then, the question is kept open and the decision given by the tribunal herein will not preclude the assessee from relying on the above notification in accordance with law.

E

Subject to above, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to co5ts.