TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d allowed the Appeal of the respondent. The facts of the case is that the respondent, manufacturer M/s. Balkrishna Tyres Ltd is engaged in the manufacture of exempted [Animal Driven Vehicle Tyres(ADV)]. They also manufacture Rubberized Tyre Cord Fabric and Rubber Tread Compound and consumed captively in the manufacture of exempted ADV tyres. The Revenue issued the show cause notice F. No. 34/C.Ex./2003 dated 4/9/2003 wherein it was proposed to demand Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,86,079.70 on the Rubberized Tyre Cord Fabric and Rs. 11,83,508/- on Rubber Tread Compound, both manufactured and consumed captively for the manufacture of exempted ADV tyres. In the adjudication the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad vide O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pound is also marketable and the same is sold and purchased in the market, therefore the same is liable for duty. In respect of his above submission he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) [2003(157) ELT 560 (Tri. Del.)] Good Year (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE (b) [1994(70) ELT 3(SC)] A. P. Stare Electricity Board Vs. CCE (c) [2004(166) ELT 145(SC)] CCE Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (d) [2004(166) ELT 433(SC)] T. N. State Electricity Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE (e) [2009(236)ELT268(Tri.Bang)] CCE Vs. MRF Ltd. (f) [2008(232)ELT 260(Tri.Mum) CEAT Ltd. Vs. CCE (g) 2010(251)ELT A56(Kar.) J.K. Tyre & Industries Vs. Commissioner (h) [2012(279)E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed under Chapter 59.02 the same is not sustainable. In support, he placed reliance on this Tribunal judgment in the respondent own case decided vide order No. A/371-371/12/EB/C-II dated 16/3/2012. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of [2007(209) E.L.T. 11(SC)] Collector of C.EX., Bombay Vs. Neoluxe India Pvt. Ltd. He submits that in the Revenue's appeal, one of the ground is that the marketability of the product is proved as assessee themselves have purchased tread rubber compound, he strongly opposed the said ground and stated that the respondent has never purchased rubber tread compound, to this effect he produced an affidavit from the respondent company. In this regard he f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) 2003(153) ELT 491(SC)] CCE, Chandigarh -! Vs. Markfed Vanaspati & allied Indus (d) [1990(46) ELT 240(Kar)] Cipla Ltd. VS. UOI (e) [2005-TIOL-165-SC-CS-LB] CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. 5. The issue in the present case for our consideration is whether the goods namely rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound manufactured and consumed captively are marketable and consequently dutiable or otherwise. As regard rubberized tyre cord fabric, it is observed that demand was raised classifying the said product under Chapter heading 59.02 whereas its correct classification is under Chapt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Tariff Item 8546 of the New Customs Tariff (after 1-3-1988) and under Tariff Entry 7014 under the New Customs Tariff up to 28-2-1988. Under the Old Customs Tariff, however, there is no express entry dealing with electrical insulators equivalent to Entry 8546.00 of the New Customs Tariff. Entry 15-A(2) of the Old Tariff will not cover these laminated sheets also for the same reason as in the case of decorative laminated sheets. These sheets, therefore, have been rightly classified under the residuary Tariff Entry 68 of the Old Customs Tariff." 7. In view of the above decision, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. From the above Apex Court judgment it is settled position that if the demand is rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....print out it is noted therein The Midas range of products now offers compounds made to suit your specifications this shows that the company has recently started marketing the rubber compound in 2015 whereas the present case pertains to the period of Aug- 98 to Nov 2001 and by this print out firstly it cannot be said that during the relevant period of this case the same goods were being marketed and it is also not established that the product shown in the printout and the respondents product are same. As regard the contention of the Revenue that since the rubber compound was manufactured on job work basis and is brought from job workers factory to respondents factory the goods is marketable. We observe that under similar facts, in the cas....