9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court s decision in Union of India v. Punjab Rubber Allied Industries [1999 (105) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]; the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product was not marketable and hence not excisable and set aside the demands; hence these appeals by the Revenue. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that in the Supreme Court s decision cited supra, the court held that Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court overlooked the fact that it was the department s contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity meaning thereby that it was sold in the market or was having a market and it was therefore obvious that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption that it was nobody s case that this intermediary product was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle styled as Friction Cloth Comes into existence at an intermediary stage, the Department is not justified in demanding excise duty on the said product, especially when it is nobody s case that this intermediary product is used or sold by the petitioners in the market . As regards to these findings of the High Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed in their judgment that High Court overlooked the fact that it was the Department s contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity meaning thereby that it was sold in the market or was having a market. It is, therefore, obvious that the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption that it was nobody s case that this intermediary product was used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sian Rubber Plastic Industries [2000 (123) E.L.T. 760] also, friction cloth has been held to be not marketable as the onus to show that it was marketable was not discharged by the Revenue. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Punjab Rubber Allied Industries. The appeal of the Revenue against the Tribunal s order in Asian Rubber Plastic Industries was dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. A246 (S.C.). In the present case, the department has not discharged the burden of establishing that goods in question are marketable. In fact the show-cause notice and adjudication order proceed on the basis that marketability is not required to be established for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
