TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - The appellants herein are manufacturer of rubberised textile fabrics for which they filed a classification list and it was approved by extending to them the classification under sub-heading 5905.10 read with Notification 5/87-C.E., dated 15-1-1987. The goods were, therefore, approved to be cleared on nil rate of duty. Later on, the departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the aforesaid product rubber compound and also confirmed the amount of duty of Rs. 1,06,361.17 proposed to be demanded in terms of the said show cause notice dated 14-2-1991 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-12-1988. 1.3 Hence this Appeal before the Tribunal against the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Central Excise. 2. Learned Advocate Shri N. Mookherjee submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....996 (86) E.L.T. 457 (S.C.) = AIR 1997 SC 460 He submits that the department has not adduced any evidence whatsoever that the product on which they intend to change duty is marketable. 3. Opposing the above contentions, learned JDR Shri S.N. Ghosh draws attention to the following finding of the adjudicating authority on the question of excisability/marketability :- "As regards the excisabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealt with the fact whether the so-called product manufactured by the appellants herein is compounded rubber as referred to in the Central Excise Tariff and whether it is marketable as compounded rubber, particularly in the face of the averment made by the appellants that the shelf-life of the product is not more than 48 hours. In this context the submission of the learned Advocate that a sample wa....