2015 (10) TMI 2074 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - Marketability - process of colour fixation by applying Sodium Silicate - cotton fabric - Denial of exemption claim - Notification No 6/2000-CE dtd 1.3.2000 - held that - Authorised Representative submitted that the process would not mere colour fixation and it would be dyeing of the fabric. But, the certificate issued by the ATIRA, would supported the case of appellant. We have also noticed that the appellant disputed marketability of the product. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue also countered the application for additional evidences filed the appellant by producing the evidences in the nature of invoices of the other units. Hence, in our considered view, the Adjudicating authority should examine the matter on merit as well as marketability on the basis of the evidences produced both sides. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 6/2000-CE regarding dyeing of cotton fabrics.
2. Determination of marketability of the goods processed by the appellant.

Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The case involved a dispute regarding whether the process of color fixation by applying Sodium Silicate undertaken by the appellant falls within the purview of exemption Notification No. 6/2000-CE. The appellant argued that the process should be considered exempt based on the certificate issued by Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association (ATIRA). On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the process constituted dyeing of the fabric and should not be exempt. Additionally, the Revenue presented evidence to support the marketability of the goods by referring to a market survey conducted by JRS, which indicated similar products being manufactured and cleared by other units. The Tribunal observed the arguments from both sides and decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering all evidence and case laws. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the matter on both merit and marketability based on the evidence presented.

Determination of Marketability:
The issue of marketability of the goods processed by the appellant was a crucial point of contention in the case. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue presented evidence in the form of invoices from other units to demonstrate that similar products were being manufactured and cleared in the market. This evidence was used to argue that the goods processed by the appellant were indeed marketable. On the other hand, the appellant disputed the marketability of the product. The Tribunal noted the arguments from both sides and decided that the Adjudicating authority should reexamine the matter on the basis of the evidence presented by both parties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a proper examination of marketability along with the merit of the case before reaching a decision. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, with both appeals being allowed by way of remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh, considering all evidence and case laws. The Tribunal stressed the importance of a thorough examination of the issues of exemption interpretation and marketability before reaching a decision. Both parties were given the opportunity to present their case, and the Adjudicating authority was instructed to decide the matter promptly. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merit of the case, leaving it to be determined by the Adjudicating authority in the fresh proceedings.