Tribunal grants appeal, remands case for reconsideration based on High Court ruling.

The Tribunal disposed of the stay petition without pre-deposit and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case in light of the High Court's decision and the findings in a similar case. The issue of marketability of the goods for the levy of Central Excise Duty was highlighted for further examination by the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Stay petition without pre-deposit, remand for de novo adjudication, marketability of goods for levy of Central Excise Duty.

Stay petition without pre-deposit:
The appellant filed a stay petition stating that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had waived the pre-deposit of duty in their writ petition against certain columns. The appellant requested dispensing with the execution of a bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the duty demand. The counsel argued that the case should be heard without insisting on pre-deposit based on the High Court's decision.

Remand for de novo adjudication:
The counsel referred to a similar case involving Phoenix Mills where the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for factual verification. The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide evidence within a month to substantiate their claim regarding the classification of the product. It was mentioned that if the product is found excisable, the appellants could avail of Modvat credit subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal agreed to remand the current case to the adjudicating authority for further examination, considering the similarities with the Phoenix Mills case.

Marketability of goods for levy of Central Excise Duty:
The appellant argued that the printing paste in question was not marketed by them, and therefore, should not be subject to duty as per Apex Court rulings. The counsel requested that their case be referred back to the adjudicating authority based on this argument. The respondent Commissioner did not object to remanding the case for reevaluation based on the observations in the Phoenix Mills case. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to not only reexamine the contentions as in the Phoenix Mills case but also to assess the claim that the printing paste is not marketable and hence not liable for Central Excise Duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay petition without pre-deposit and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider the case in light of the High Court's decision and the findings in the Phoenix Mills case. The issue of marketability of the goods for the levy of Central Excise Duty was also highlighted for further examination by the adjudicating authority.

---