9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held In the case of CCE v. Ambalal Sarabhai Industries reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that where the assessee claims that the goods were not marketable, the burden is on the Department to prove that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the respondent herein asking them to explain as to why Central Excise Duty should not be charged on yeast captively consumed and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the SCN, the respondents herein stated that they were not manufacturing yeast but it was generated in the process of fermentation and got destroyed after fermentation. It was contended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 447 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 1065 and this Tribunal in Para 7 of its order held 7. Revenue has itself mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the yeast manufactured/propagated had shelf life of six to eight hours. Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the yeast in question is capable of being brought to the market for the purpose of being bought and sold. The mere fact that some yeast i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and reject all the appeals filed by the Revenue . He submits that again this issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and the Tribunal in his Final Order Nos. 205 to 208/2001-D in Para 4 of its order held 4. The Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 252 to 277/2000-D, dt. 8-5-2000, in respondents' own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue was that of marketability which was finally settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = 1995 (7) RLT 1. We note further that the Tribunal relied on a number of decisions of this Tribunal to come to this conclusion. We further note that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ranger Breweries Ltd. was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
