1998 (1) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Collector has passed a very detailed speaking order. The samples were sent for chemical test and the Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Laboratory had opined that the sample is in the form of carded sliver composed wholly of wool fibres. It may be verified by executive checks whether the factory has got gill boxes and the same have been used in the manufacture of sliver under reference . The adjudicating authority in order to verify this opinion of the Chemical Examiner visited the factory along with scientist of Textile Manufacture Section, Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Shri P.K. Arora on 28-4-1984. He was accompanied by Shri N.R. Lodha, Executive Director Commercial, Shri S.N. Ghosh, Technical Manager and Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctor has proceeded to consider the item as goods on the basis of its inclusion in the Tariff Schedule as item. 2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate drew attention to Para 9 of the memo of appeal and submitted that the evidence placed by the appellants was not considered including the request of the party to the Collector (Appeals) to visit the factory and confirm their plea that they have not installed the gill boxes. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri Ravinder Narain and Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Advocates who were present in the Court submitted that on this identical product there are judgments of Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court wherein the High Courts have taken a view that this particular product name .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6) E.L.T. 11 and that of Gokalchand Rattanchand Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India as reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 566. In both these judgments a similar view has been expressed by Bombay High Court. The High Court has taken into consideration the judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India as reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 320 and that of Union Carbide of India v. Union of India as reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169. 4. The learned DR reiterates the departmental view. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the issue raised by the appellants with regard to non-marketability of the item and the item being not goods and not excisable has already been upheld by the Bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X