9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial period, the silver residue was exempt from excise duty. Therefore, the excise duty demand in respect of silver residue also does not sustain. In view of the finding of fact with reference to the evidence, or want of evidence, as recorded by the Tribunal does not lead to any question of law worth consideration in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Balbir Singh, A.S.G. (NP), Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv., Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv., Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv. And Mr. Mohd. Akhil, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 11/07/2008 had clearly directed the adjudicating authority to apply his mind independently on the submissions made by the appellant as regards the marketability of the products and give a detailed and speaking order on the issue. However, in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has failed to comply with this direction and has not given any independent findings as to the marketability of the products but has merely followed the earlier findings in order of 26/06/2000 wherein the proceedings were dropped on account of time bar and wherein certain observations were made regarding the excisability of the some of the products. This Tribunal in para 17 of the order dated 11/07/2008 had clearly held that these findings are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants have not, at any point of time, marketed these goods. Further, there are a series of decisions passed by this Tribunal affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prasad Film Laboratories, Famous Cine Laboratories and Navrang Cine Center (P) Ltd. (cited supra) wherein this Tribunal while considering an identical matter has given a categorical finding that the chemical preparations used in the processing of cinematographic films are not goods known to the market and hence are not exigible to duty. Further, the experts opinion adduced by the appellant from M/S. Kodak India Ltd. also clearly shows that these preparations are mixed prior to their usage and such mixed chemical preparations are prone to oxidation and other chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been submitted by the DR that various chemical preparations used in cine film processing are marketed by many including M/s. Kodak India Ltd. However, when a query was raised whether these goods are sane or similar to the goods made by the appellant in their studio, Revenue could not confirm the same. Therefore, merely because certain chemicals are marketed cannot lead to the conclusion that the chemical preparations made in situ by the appellant are also marketable and no effort whatsoever has been made by the Revenue to establish the marketability and Revenue has failed miserably in this regard. Further the appellant has produced a letter from M/s. Kodak India (P) Ltd. dated 04/10/2013 wherein it has been stated that the kit chemicals m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
