2011 (6) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Excise Tariff Act. The said goods are manufactured from plastic granules which are duty paid.  During the course of manufacture of the said goods, there emerges at the intermediate stage, polystyrene sheets in crude form. The plastic articles manufactured by the appellants were exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 14/92-CE dated 01/03/1991 subject to the condition that such articles are made out of goods falling under heading No. 39.01 to 39.15 on which the duty of excise leviable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the additional duty of excise chargeable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has already been paid and no credit of such duty is availed under Rule 57A of the Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods, and, therefore, he rejected the said contention of the appellant. He also rejected the contention of the appellant that, if duty is sought to be charged at the intermediate stage the duty exemption given at the final stage would become redundant. In the light of the above, the appellate authority rejected the appeal and the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if duty has to be discharged at the intermediate stage of polystyrene sheets, then the exemption granted to articles of plastics made from duty paid granules by Notification No. 15/94 would become totally redundant. They rely upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. Solidur Plastic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of Amazon Alliance vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - II  2011 (263) ELT 682 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that appeal rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that the issue was not raised before the adjudicating authority was bad in law. 4. The learned DR reiterates the findings given by the lower authorities and submits that so far as the marketability of the intermediate product is concerned, it is only a question of fact and not a question of law and, therefore, non-consideration of the same by the lower appellate authority does not vitiate the order.  5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Since the demand of duty has been made on the intermediate product, namely, polystyre....