2006 (3) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-1-2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that, the product in dispute is nothing but packing materials for jelly based products manufactured by the appellants. He has also observed that similar other packing material like plastic cups used by the appellants for packing their jelly product are being purcha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel, however, relies upon the following judgments to support that the product in question is not a standard item nor the goods generally marketed, and hence not liable to duty: (a) Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 274 (S.C.): "It is difficult to lay down a precise test to determine marketability of articles. Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE & Cus. - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 128 (S.C.):  "Actual sale in the market is not necessary but the articles must be capable of being sold in the market or known in the market as goods." 4. The learned JDR relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein it was held that: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....counsel has tried to distinguish the product from the ordinary plastic containers, pleading that they are not marketable as they are not generally brought to the market and sold in such shapes, it is an admitted fact that the product in question is nothing but forms of containers which are capable of being bought and sold. In this connection, we also find that the Apex Court while dealing with the....