TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e subject item which has been discribed as AST Car Tyre and SV Car Ring Rims" (Ring Rims), which is also known as 'Ring Rims' has been imported by the appellant as capital goods. The Ring Rims are used for technical testing of tyres i.e. inflated dimension testing of tyres to test, technical fitness thereof within the factory premises before marketing/sales of such tyres. ii. The Department's stand is that these goods falling under Chapter 40111090 of Customs Tariff is not covered under definition of capital goods. The Department, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 18/03/2011 proposing denial of Cenvat credit on these items to the appellant. iii. The show cause notice was adjudicated by Order in Original No.51 dated 10.12.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the input and the finished product are excisable goods and fall under any of the specified chapters in the tariff schedule. It is pertinent to note that vide Notification No.28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29th June 1995, the said Rule was amended and the phrase "whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not" was inserted. There is no dispute that in the instant case, both the F&S machines and the flexible laminated plastic film and poly paper are excisable. Therefore, the short question for consideration is whether the said material on which Modavt credit is claimed by the assessee, not physically used in the manufacture of the said machine but used for testing the F&S machines would be covered within the sweep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... steel for the appellant Board were marketable. After considering various cases on the question of marketability of goods, Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Court, summed up the position thus : (SCC p. 434, para 10) "10. It would be evident from the facts and ratio of the above decisions that the goods in each case were found to be not marketable. Whether it is refined oil (non-deodorised) concerned in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 791 = 1997 (1) E.L.T. (J199) (S.C.) or kiln gas in South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 922 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J366) (S.C.) or aluminium cans with rough uneven surface in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547 = 1986 (24) E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plastic body of EMR of the respondents either for replacement or otherwise one cannot get it in the market because at present it is not a commercially known product. For these reasons, the plastic body, which is a part of EMR of the respondents, is not "goods" so as to be liable to duty as parts of EMR under para 5(f) of the said exemption notification." 18... 19... 20. Thus, if a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled ....