Appellant wins appeal as tribunal rules PPMFY not subject to Central Excise duty

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the intermediate product PPMFY was not liable for Central Excise duty. The judgment concluded that PPMFY was not marketable in its current form as it was an integral part of a continuous manufacturing process and underwent subsequent processes before becoming a final product. The tribunal emphasized that for a product to be liable for duty, it must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges, which PPMFY did not meet. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Whether the intermediate product PPMFY is liable for Central Excise duty based on marketability.
2. Whether the product in question is capable of being marketed or is considered an intermediate product exempt from duty.

Issue 1: The judgment addressed the issue of whether the intermediate product PPMFY is liable for Central Excise duty based on marketability. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PPMFY and NWF, argued that the PPMFY is not marketable as it is an integral part of a continuous manufacturing process. The appellant contended that the PPMFY, at the stage it is generated, is not marketable as it undergoes subsequent processes before becoming a final product. The appellant relied on legal precedents such as the case of Bata India Ltd. vs. CCE, which emphasized that a product must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges to be liable for duty. The judgment analyzed the marketability of the PPMFY and concluded that it fails the test of marketability as it cannot be marketed in its current form. The tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents, and thus, the PPMFY was held not liable for Central Excise duty.

Issue 2: The judgment also examined whether the product in question is capable of being marketed or qualifies as an intermediate product exempt from duty. The appellant argued that the PPMFY, alleged to be an intermediate product, is not marketable at the stage it is generated. The tribunal considered the manufacturing process, where the PPMFY undergoes various stages before becoming a final product. Relying on legal precedents like the case of UoI v. Delhi Cloth & General Mill, the tribunal emphasized that for a product to be considered goods liable for duty, it must be something that can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold. After evaluating the contentions and perusing the records, the tribunal found that the PPMFY, in its current form, is not marketable and thus does not qualify as a dutiable product. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues related to the liability of the intermediate product PPMFY for Central Excise duty based on marketability. By considering legal precedents and the specific manufacturing process involved, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the PPMFY was not liable for duty as it did not meet the criteria of marketability in its current form.

---