1998 (7) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. -  Briefly stated the facts of these two cases are as follows : 2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of ceramic sanitaryware falling under Chapter 69 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. For the purpose of manufacturing the said articles they use moulds of plaster of paris. Demand of duty has been made by Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e not marketable. In the appellants' own case they are making them specifically for manufacture of their articles of ceramics. They are not selling these moulds outside to anyone. It is further stated that it is a well settled proposition of law that Revenue has to discharge the burden whether a particular commodity is goods in the sense of Central Excise law or not. Goods have been defined by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e further points out that merely because some goods might be mentioned in the Tariff is not enough to treat them as excisable, as has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of Moti Laminates [1995 (76) E.L.T. 241]. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that even if articles of plaster of paris are mentioned in the Tariff in Chapter 68, it does not mean that they become excisable unless the Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ey are marketable. Unless these are not proved marketable the goods cannot be charged excise duty, as held by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions starting from UOI v. DCM General Mills [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 177)] and reiterated as late as in the case of Moti Laminates, mentioned supra. On going through the impugned order we find that no doubt the adjudicating authority has given a finding tha....