9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The brief facts of the case are that all the three appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubber tyres and inner tubes for tyres falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also make compound rubber for use in the manufacture of tyres and inner tubes. Compound rubber was exempt from duty vide N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Government to levy duty on compounded rubber which is borne out from the issue of Notification No. 74/94-C.E., which re-iterates the exemption earlier available to compounded rubber, and that compounded rubber was not marketable and therefore, not dutiable. The Adjudicating authority held that the test of marketability was satisfied since the goods had shelf life and were easily transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 807 (T) = 1999 (33) RLT 956]. He refers to a certificate dated 1-12-1997 of the Indian Rubber Institute, New Delhi stating that the rubber compounds for cycle tyres are not marketed commercially and also submits that the quantity of retarder chemicals used by the appellants makes the product non-marketable, since the percentage of retarded chemicals would prevent curing of the rubber at dim tem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have carefully considered the rival submissions. While it is true that it is the appellants who argued before the Adjudicating authority that the product is not marketable but did not support this contention, it is equally true that the Tribunal has to take correct view on the excisability or otherwise of the disputed product. The appellants lost the chance of explaining their case before the Adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
