9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Ltd., for which the raw materials have been provided by M/s. RPL. The Central Excise officers during their visit at the factory site, it was found that the steel structures were fabricated for construction of jetty for unloading the raw material at Tapti river side. According to the Revenue, the appellants manufactured the floating structures/pontoons and used as construction aids. A show cause notice dated.21-5-1993 was issued, proposing demand of duty of Rs. 20,41,074.37 along with interest and penalty on the fabricated structures for installation of plant and machineries. There is a further demand of Rs. 10,26,794.47 along with interest and penalty on floating structures/pontoons. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etable. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.)]. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the records, we find from the adjudication order that the appellants had undertaken the construction of jetty and to meet with the emergent requirement during the construction work, they have fabricated the temporary structures for the said construction activities. It is seen from the adjudication order that the temporary structures for construction of jetty, was constructed out of the material supplied by M/s. RPL, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of Union of India & Ors. v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. 2002 (7) SCC 435 where this Court was to consider whether the plastic body of an Electro Mosquito Repellent (EMR) was liable to Excise duty. In negativing the question it was held : "It may be noticed that in the cases referred to in the passage, quoted above, the reasons for holding the articles "not marketable" are different, however, they are not exhaustive. It is difficult to lay down a precise test to determine marketability of articles. Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity of the articles known to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssibility of a purchase and sale of the commodity but whether there was sufficient proof that the product is commercially known." 6. In the case of M/s. Cipla Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2008 (225) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "11. Since marketability is an essential ingredient to hold that a product is dutiable or exigible, it was for the Revenue to prove that the product was marketable or was capable of being marketed. Manufacturing activity, by itself, does not prove the marketability. The product produced must be a distinct commodity known in the common parlance to the commercial community for the purpose of buying and selling. Since there is no evidence of either buyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
