2008 (12) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The impugned order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 34,04,317/- stand passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded with direction. 2. The dispute is as to whether the appellants are entitled to import the inputs under exemption, in terms of Notific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re satisfied, emerged goods are required to be held as excisable goods. The only reason adopted by the Commissioner for rejecting the said claim is that rags are not specified under any specific tariff heading. We do not, at this prima facie stage, find much force in the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. Prime criterion for holding an item as excisable is that the same is a result of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alogy, and as a corollary if the goods are not specified by name, under any heading of Central Excise tariff, but otherwise satisfy the criteria of manufacture and marketable, the same would not become non-excisable. 5. In view of the above and the finding of manufacture and marketability, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out prima facie case in their favour so as to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X