9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. The appellants herein are manufacturer of rubberised textile fabrics for which they filed a classification list and it was approved by extending to them the classification under sub-heading 5905.10 read with Notification 5/87-C.E., dated 15-1-1987. The goods were, therefore, approved to be cleared on nil rate of duty. Later on, the department issued a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid product rubber compound and also confirmed the amount of duty of Rs. 1,06,361.17 proposed to be demanded in terms of the said show cause notice dated 14-2-1991 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-12-1988. 1.3 Hence this Appeal before the Tribunal against the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Central Excise. 2. Learned Advocate Shri N. Mookherjee submits that the product on which du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 He submits that the department has not adduced any evidence whatsoever that the product on which they intend to change duty is marketable. 3. Opposing the above contentions, learned JDR Shri S.N. Ghosh draws attention to the following finding of the adjudicating authority on the question of excisability/marketability :- As regards the excisability of compounded rubber, it may be mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the appellants herein is compounded rubber as referred to in the Central Excise Tariff and whether it is marketable as compounded rubber, particularly in the face of the averment made by the appellants that the shelf-life of the product is not more than 48 hours. In this context the submission of the learned Advocate that a sample was drawn by the Revenue for the purpose of determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disproved by the Revenue which they were required to prove. Accordingly, we hold that the product manufactured by the appellant on which duty is sought to be charged is not liable to duty. We allow the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief to them. 5. In view of our decision on merits on the question of excisability of the manufactured goods, we are not inclined to enter into the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
