2017 (12) TMI 75 - AT - Central Excise

Marketibility/excisability - Benefit of N/N. 67/95 dated 19.03.1995 - captively manufactured and consumed armoured cable emerges during the course of manufacture of PVC coated armoured cable - case of Revenue is that as appellant is clearing the PVC coated armoured cables by availing N/N. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, the armoured cable manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant is not eligible for exemption under N/N. 67/95 dated 19.03.1995 - Held that - Although the function of the goods emerges at the intermediate stage and final goods, is transmission of electricity, but the goods at intermediate stage, cannot be sold in the market without a protective PVC coating, which is known as outer sheath - Further, no instance has been brought in our knowledge by both the sides whether, the intermediate product is capable of being sold in the market - the intermediate product emerges during the course of manufacturing of their final product is not marketable - decided in favor of appellant. Whether the appellant is entitled for benefit of N/N. 67/95 dated 16.03.1995? - Held that - the issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of KEI Industries Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 532-CESTAT-New Delhi , where it was held that the appellant is entitled for benefit of N/N. 67/1995 ibid for intermediate product emerging during the course of manufacture of final product - the appellants are entitled for benefit of N/N. 67/95 while they are clearing their final goods by availing benefit of N/N. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 - decided in favor of appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Marketability of goods emerging at an intermediate stage and entitlement to benefit under Notification No.67/1995.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to benefit under Notification No.67/95 dated 16.03.1995.

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the marketability of armoured cables emerging during the manufacture of PVC coated armoured cables and the entitlement to exemption under Notification No.67/95. The appellant argued that the intermediate product was not marketable as it required a protective PVC coating to be sold in the market and could not be used for transmission of electricity without it. The Tribunal found that the intermediate product was not marketable as it could not be sold without the necessary coating, thus ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving KEI Industries Ltd. where the benefit of Notification No.67/95 was allowed. In the present case, the appellant was found to be entitled to the benefit of the notification as they were clearing final goods by availing specified notifications. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 while availing the benefits of other notifications. Consequently, both issues were resolved in favor of the appellant, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief granted.