9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Although the Stay Matter was fixed for hearing today, it appeared that the litigation goes to the root of the matter of excisability of the impugned goods and grant of relief in terms of a notification which was in force for a period of 7 (seven) years vide Notification No. 152/87 rescinded on 1-3-94 and similar such benefit restituted soon after 27 days thereof, by Notification No. 74/94 on 28- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if covered by tariff entry. 3.2 Dr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that on the very issue itself, the matter could have been decided by lower Appellate Authority without going to issue of granting exemption during the transition period. While the learned Appellate Authority failed to answer the dispute relating to leviability of duty on the goods with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28-3-94. His further submission was that the goods having no identity for its marketability, without satisfying the twin test of excise jurisprudence, the Appellant cannot be prejudiced. 3.4 In support of his contention, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd. - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) and Cadil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below for no declared law to grant relief to the Appellant during the impugned period. So far as the excisability is concerned, his submission was that the goods being excisable in terms of the tariff entry, it cannot go out of the sweep of law. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The Appellate Order did not demonstrate the manner how I marketability was proved by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
