Dispute over marketability of armoured cables & benefit entitlement under Notification No.67/95

The case involved a dispute over the marketability of armoured cables at an intermediate stage and entitlement to benefit under Notification No.67/95. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the intermediate product was not marketable without the necessary coating. Additionally, the appellant was entitled to benefit under Notification No.67/95 while availing benefits of other notifications, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant with the impugned order set aside and consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues:
1. Marketability of goods emerging at an intermediate stage and entitlement to benefit under Notification No.67/1995.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to benefit under Notification No.67/95 dated 16.03.1995.

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the marketability of armoured cables emerging during the manufacture of PVC coated armoured cables and the entitlement to exemption under Notification No.67/95. The appellant argued that the intermediate product was not marketable as it required a protective PVC coating to be sold in the market and could not be used for transmission of electricity without it. The Tribunal found that the intermediate product was not marketable as it could not be sold without the necessary coating, thus ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving KEI Industries Ltd. where the benefit of Notification No.67/95 was allowed. In the present case, the appellant was found to be entitled to the benefit of the notification as they were clearing final goods by availing specified notifications. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 while availing the benefits of other notifications. Consequently, both issues were resolved in favor of the appellant, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief granted.

---