2017 (5) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xcise leviable on the subject goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Siddeshwar Yelamali, Chartered Accountant For the Appellant Shri K.T. Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellant has filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dt. 23/09/2003 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Tubular bags falling under chapter heading 5909 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the process of manufacturer, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... il 2011 to December 2001. Duty demand was confirmed by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, E-2 Division, Bangalore vide Order-in-Original No.100/02/E-2 dt. 09/12/2002. Penalty of ₹ 5,000/- was also imposed under Rule 25. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-original. Hence the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed contrary to the provisions of the Act and binding judicial precedent. The matter pertains to chargeability of Central Excise duty on intermediary products i.e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... considered the submissions of both the parties. We find that the goods in question i.e. impregnated special woven fabric emerged during the continuous process of manufacture of tubular bags and have got a self-life of only a few minutes. It is established that this intermediate product cannot be marketed and therefore it cannot be called as excisable goods. Consequently, the subject item is not covered by the definition of excisable goods and duty of excise cannot be charged on the subject items. 7. In view of our discussion above and by following the decisions cited supra, we hold that the goods are not marketable and therefore are not excisable and no duty of Central Excise leviable on the subject goods. Consequently, we allow both the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X