TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20-6-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed therein on the appellants. 2. The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants after serving show cause notice on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the record shows that they had taken out the disputed pairs from the factory for showing it to their different buyers for approval. As a general practice, one shoe from the relevant pair was retained in the Head Office and the second odd shoe was kept by the manufacturing unit in order to manufacture the footwears according to the said design and shape. Those pairs of the shoes were not in a fini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that record. The odd pairs of shoes being neither fully finished nor marketable, could not be subjected to excisability. In Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 253, the Apex Court has observed "that the product even if covered by the Tariff entry will not be excisable to duty unless marketable". Apart from this, the duty demand raised from the appellant is on the ....