9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes, classifiable as excisable goods, under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant discharges central excise duty liability on the assessable value determined, under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Central Government vide Notification No. 2/2006-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2006 has notified certain goods, as the goods to which the provisions of Section 4A ibid shall apply. The said Notification was amended vide Notification No. 11/2006-CE(NT), dated 29.05.2006 in inserting "Parts, components and assemblies of automobiles" in order to fall under the provisions of Section 4A ibid. Based on the said notification, the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes and such product by itself is separately identifiable and is a distinct Marketable product. It cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant is exclusively meant for the automobile industries for use as parts and components and are not capable for use in other purposes. Since the goods manufactured by the appellant are meant for use by other manufacturers also, in our opinion, such manufactured goods cannot be subjected to levy of central excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate in view of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Consultant for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. It needs to 3 EX/3069 of 2010 be ascertained as to how the goods, in question, are referred to in the market by those who deal with them, be it for the purposes of selling, purchasing or otherwise. Similarly, in CCE vs. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported that whether a particular article will fall within a particular tariff heading or not has to be decided on the basis of tenable, material or evidence to determine how such article is understood in "common parlance" or in "commercial world" or in "trade circle" or "in its popular sense meaning". Similar views have been expressed by the Apex court in CCE, New Delhi vs. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
