2009 (9) TMI 826 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI Citation: 2009 (9) TMI 826 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ.

Shri V.V. Harihar, JCDR, for the Appellant.

Shri M. Kannan, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

The appeals involve the common issue of the excisability of 'friction cloth' and 'rubberized cotton' produced by the assessees. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed raised demands on the goods, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Punjab Rubber & Allied Industries. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, setting aside the demands. The Tribunal found that the department had not established the marketability of the product, as required by law. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not conducted any market enquiry or obtained expert opinion to ascertain the marketability of the product. As a result, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were rejected. The judgment was pronounced on 30-9-2009.

The judgment discusses the marketability of 'friction cloth' and 'rubberized cotton' and the burden of proof required by the Revenue to establish this marketability. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were marketable, leading to the rejection of the appeals. The decision emphasizes the importance of factual evidence in determining the excisability of products and highlights the need for the Revenue to meet the burden of proof in such cases.

The summary provides a detailed analysis of the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the marketability of the products and the burden of proof required by the Revenue to establish excisability. It covers the main points of the case and the Tribunal's decision, offering a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings. The summary serves as an informative guide to the judgment, highlighting the key aspects of the case and the Tribunal's ruling in a clear and concise manner.