1997 (12) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Shankar, Member (T)]. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector demanding duty on two grounds and imposing a penalty on the appellant. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The first ground for which the Additional Collector demanded duty was that some items of machinery which the appellant manufactures could not be considered to be waste, within the meaning of Rule 57D bec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cisability of goods. If the goods manufactured by the appellant, though superficially finished excisable goods could not satisfy this criterion on marketability, they would have to be considered to be waste. The kind of situation that the Additional Collector has in mind may be different - in a case where, after the finished excisable product comes into existence it becomes unuseable for some reas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X