2011 (6) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppearance: Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for the appellant Shri Kishori Lal, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: GWL/126/2004 dated 15/03/2004. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The appellants, M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd., are manufacturers of plastic articles falling under sub-heading No. 3924.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The said goods are manufactured from plastic granules which are duty paid. During the course of manufacture of the said goods, there emerges at the intermediate stage, polystyrene sheets in crude form. The plastic articles manufactured by the appellants were exempt fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... made a plea before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the polystyrene sheets arising at the intermediate stage were in crude form and were not marketable and, therefore, the same were not liable to duty. The appellate authority, however, observed that neither in their reply to show-cause notice nor at the time of personal hearing before the original adjudicating authority, the appellant had raised the issue of non-marketability of the impugned goods, and, therefore, he rejected the said contention of the appellant. He also rejected the contention of the appellant that, if duty is sought to be charged at the intermediate stage the duty exemption given at the final stage would become redundant. In the light of the above, the appellate authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1998 (99) ELT 200 (SC) wherein it was held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the question of law which arise from the facts as found by authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability on the assessee even though the said question was not raised before the lower authorities but sought to be added as additional ground before the Tribunal. They also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Amazon Alliance vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - II 2011 (263) ELT 682 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that appeal rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that the issue was not raised before the adjudicating authority was bad in law. 4. The learned DR reiterates .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X