2006 (1) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant had applied for and obtained permission for clearance of semi-finished goods i.e. floor coverings or felt falling under sub-headings 5702.20 and 5702.90, under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, from their factory for the purpose of latexing at the factory premises of some other person at Faridabad. It was the contention of the Department that the aforesaid semi-finished goods, were 'felt' on which excise duty was payable under Heading 56.02. That contention was adjudicated upon and finally it was accepted by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal. 4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon subsequent judgment of the CEGAT in Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. United Felt & Carpet [....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el contends that this issue had come up before this Tribunal between the parties and the Tribunal, after examining the case in all its aspects accepted the appellant's contention that there is no manufacture of felts and, therefore, no duty demand could arise. Learned counsel has emphasized that it is well settled [Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] that mere mention of an item in the tariff would not attract the levy of excise duty; the item must be marketable goods as well. 3. Learned JDR points out that Collector had passed his order based on the admission contained in the appellant's letter dated 26-8-89. 4. We have perused the record and considered the submission made by both sides. Essenti....