9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... article board and sport goods; that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 17-10-2000; that the officers seized laminated sheets of design carom on the ground that such sheets cannot be treated as sport goods; that the show cause notice dated 31-1-2001, issued in respect of seized goods, has been dropped by the Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 73/02 dated 12-7-2002; that another show cause notice dated 9-10-2002 was issued to them demanding duty on the laminated sheets cleared by them during the period from 18-3-99 to 30-9-2000 without payment of duty on the ground that the laminated sheets, having printed design of carom, chess, ludo, etc., are classifiable under sub-heading 4823.40 of the Schedule to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd., 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the intermediate products coming into existence in the course of manufacture of goods, would be subject to duty only when they satisfy the test of marketability; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has not discussed any material to prove the marketability of the impugned goods. Finally, the learned Advocate, submitted that the extended period of limitation is not invocable; that in the present matter the entire demand for the period from 18-3-99 to 30-9-2000 is time-barred as the show cause notice had been issued on 9-10-2002; that the charge of wilful misde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods, which are having their identity and are capable of being marketed. He, further, submitted that it is not necessary that for being marketable, the product should come to the market for being bought and sold. He relied upon the decision in the case of A.P. State Electricity Board v. C.C.E., Hyderabad, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has held that marketability is thus essentially a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. There can be no generalisation. The fact that the goods are not, in fact, marketed, is of no relevance. So long as the goods are marketable, they are goods for the purpose of Section 3. It is not also necessary that the goods, in question, should be generally available in the mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff Heading 4823.40 treating them as a decorative laminated sheets. The contention of the appellants, on the other hand, is that these are not decorative laminated sheets as these are known in the common parlance by the persons dealing with these goods in the trade. These are intermediatory products coming into existence in the process of manufacture of sports goods. We find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the laminated sheets, with designs of sport goods, are not generally known in the market as decorative laminated sheets. The Department has not brought any material on record to show that the impugned goods are known in the market as decorative laminated sheets. On the other hand, the learned Advocate has referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
