2000 (8) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the course of processing of filament/rovings of glass from the raw material/inputs. Therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants are engaged in the activity of processing of filament/roving from the raw materials/inputs. In the course of processing glass fibre wool waste also comes into existence and the same is thereafter sold by them. They did not pay any duty for the period in question while clearing the glass fibre wool waste from the factory during the periods in question (From 25-5-1994 to 22-9-1994 in Appeal No. E/2150/97-D, from March 1996 to August 1996 in Appeal No. E/2149/97-D and from September 1996 to January 1997 in Appeal No. E/1875/98-D). They were accordingly served with d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iance on Balaji Enterprises v. C.C.E., 1997 (92) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), U.O.I. v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268, Finolex Cables Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 418 and C.C.E. v. CMI Ltd. - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 710. 5. On the other hand, while refuting this contention of the counsel the learned JDR has argued that the product fibre wool waste arising while processing of the filament/rovings of the glass was not in fact waste having no use but only mixture of fibres/filaments capable of being used as fibres after carding for reinforcement of the plastic goods or for manufacture of continuous padded glass fibre and as such had been rightly held to be excisable along with the main product by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been recorded without any material on the record. The learned JDR also has been able to refer to any material evidence/document on the file for substantiating these findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Regarding the marketability of the product in question (glass fibre wool waste), no findings whatsoever had been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has nowhere observed in the impugned orders that the product is marketable. His simple observation that the so-called glass fibre wool waste was identifiable product having characteristic and end use and was also known to the market, cannot be accepted to be correct, as he has failed to refer to the material/evidence on the basis of which he had so opined. No invoice or any o....