9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld affect their existing market - it is for the manufacturer to decide the method which he has to choose for sale of the product manufactured - order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside - Matter remanded to the Commissioner - E/6281/2004 - 634/2010-EX(PB) - Dated:- 24-8-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ramesh Nair, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nitin Anand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner, Indore has rejected the application filed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in writing. The first proviso provides that in case where such duty does not exceed one thousand rupees, the provisions of the said rule shall have effect as if for the expression Commissioner, the expression Superintendent of Central Excise has been substituted. Second proviso provides that in case where the duty exceeds one thousand rupees but does not exceed two thousand five hundred rupees, it would be for the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and third proviso provides that in case where duty exceeds two thousand five hundred rupees but does not exceed five thousand five hundred rupees it woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Officers of the department on the point of method of marketability of similar type of goods. However, there does not appear any analysis of whatever material in the form of letters placed on record by the appellants in support of their claim. It is one thing to say that the appellants have not produced any proof and another thing to express opinion in relation to materials already produced on record. Certainly, the Commissioner could have ascertained on analyses of those letters whether the same revealed in any manner information regarding non-marketability of the goods in question. Apparently, the impugned order does not disclose any such analysis. 8. In case of an application claiming the goods to be unfit for marketing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
