ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd., the matter relates to the duty liability on a number of items as mentioned in para-3 of the show cause notice dated 13.02.96 at page 31 of the paper book.
2. Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate submits that these items as mentioned in para-3 of the show cause notice are in the nature of structurals and there is no finding by the adjudicating authority that they were obtained as a result of manufacturing process and were marketable. He invites attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. – 2001 (44) RLT 113 (SC) and prays for remand of the matter for decision in the light of the aforesaid Supreme Court’s order.
3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR has no objection for remand of the matter but mentions that there is clear finding in this case by the adjudicating authority that the goods were first fabricated and then they were installed and thus, the goods were identifiable and dutiable.
4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we find that the Commissioner has referred to the various activities and have held that the activity of fabrication which had resulted into manufacture of excisable goods, were correctly chargeable to excise duty. (para-19 of the impugned order refers). We, however find that there is no clear finding about the other aspects as referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-4 as under:-
“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 are 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. We consider that the matter has to be re-examined in the light of the observations given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above.
6. Both the sides are at liberty to place such materials as to facilitate a correct view in the matter. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who will re-examine the matter in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision referred to above and then after hearing, pass a speaking appealable order as per law. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated & pronounced in the Open Court on 6.6.2001.
??