TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002 (149) E.L.T. 210 (Tribunal) was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order in accordance with law including the point regarding marketability of the intermediary products i.e. C.I. Castings. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of C.I. Chilled Rolls classifiable under Heading No. 84.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. C.I. Chilled Rolls were exempted from payment of central excise duty vide Notification No. 56/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. The appellants were also manufacturing C.I. Castings, which are captively consumed in their final products i.e. C.I. Chilled Rolls. The appellants claimed that C.I. Castings can not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of excise duty. Since, there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding marketability, excise duty could not be levied on the intermediary product i.e. C.I. Castings. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a number of judgments to contend that unless the intermediary product is marketable, excise duty could not be levied, [cases referred : Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India & Others reported in (1986) 2 SCC 547; Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Excise & Customs reported in (2005) 7 SCC 94]..." In the absence of any finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding marketability, we are handicapped and cannot proceed with the case any further. Accordingly, we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classifiable only under Heading No. 84.37 exempted by Notification No. 56/95-C.E. It is his contention that C.I. Castings, which emerged from the moulds having the essential character of the finished machine parts or as a blank for machine parts, are to be considered as blanks. (d) Demand of duty is partly barred by limitation. He submits that the Tribunal in its earlier order already confirmed the demand for the normal period of limitation and set aside penalty. Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. So, demand of duty for extended period of limitation and penalty are not sustainable. (e) He also referred to several case laws with his written submissions. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that both the Authorities below rightly held that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 cannot be extended because final product is exempted. (e) He also submits that the appellant suppressed the material facts from the Department. It was detected by the Central Excise Officers during the preventive check. So, the extended period of limitation should be invoked and penalty is warranted. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we are unable to accept the contention of the ld. DR that the remand order is confined only on the issue of marketability. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that all contentions are left open. So, in our view,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were organic chemicals. It does not in any way establish marketability. Nor can marketability be established on the basis of mere stability. Something more would have to be shown to establish that DECA and CMBE were known in the market as commercial products. 8. The Tribunal has ignored the evidence given by the employees of the appellant. In fact the wrong test was applied to determine the issue. The issue was not whether there was a hypothetical possibility of a purchase and sale of the commodity but whether there was sufficient proof that the product is commercially known. 9. We fail to understand how the letter of M/s. Gharda Chemicals could in any way be stated to have supported the conclusion of the Tribunal that the product was mar....