2001 (8) TMI 1153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the course of manufacture of final product'. 2. Ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Rajappa submits that their competitor's matter on this issue came up for consideration before the Delhi Bench in the case of Punjab Power Packs Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 50 (T). In the present case, the appellants had taken a stand that pro-cess of bringing into existence "Liquid Electrolyte" an ionic conductor electrolyte which provides the medium for transfer for electrons as ions, inside an electro chemical unit (cell) is not goods as they do not have a separate identity. It was also submitted that Lithium Hydro and Potassium Hydroxide in conjunction with Deionised water or other solvents dissolved salts, acids or alkalies do produ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of a 'Battery'. Thus, a new and different product does emerge by the said so-called mixing operation as held by the ld. Commissioner in Para 13 of the impugned order. He reiterates the judgment cited by the Commissioner in the order. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the facts of the present case with that of M/s. Punjab Power Packs Ltd. case (supra) cited by the ld. Consultant, we notice that the facts are identical and the issue is totally covered by the said judgment. The Tribunal after due consideration of the entire process has clearly held in Paras 5 to 8 that process does not bring into existence a new commodity and Revenue has not discharged their burden on marketability. The findings recorded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Senior Works Manager of the appellants and there is no independent reasoning on how the mixing results in a distinct commercial commodity having a different name, character and use from the solid form so as to satisfy the test of manufacture which is one of the important criteria for determining excisability. The second criterion namely that of marketability has also not been satisfied, since the Revenue has not discharged the burden of establishing marketability and the finding on this aspect, in Para 19 of the impugned order is solely based upon the statement of the Senior Works Manager that the cost of the impugned product has been included in the value of stationary batteries from which the Collector has inferred that the impugned prod....