TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Briefly stated the facts of these two cases are as follows : 2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of ceramic sanitaryware falling under Chapter 69 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. For the purpose of manufacturing the said articles they use moulds of plaster of paris. Demand of duty has been made by Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants own case they are making them specifically for manufacture of their articles of ceramics. They are not selling these moulds outside to anyone. It is further stated that it is a well settled proposition of law that Revenue has to discharge the burden whether a particular commodity is goods in the sense of Central Excise law or not. Goods have been defined by the Supreme Court in a numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome goods might be mentioned in the Tariff is not enough to treat them as excisable, as has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of Moti Laminates [1995 (76) E.L.T. 241]. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that even if articles of plaster of paris are mentioned in the Tariff in Chapter 68, it does not mean that they become excisable unless the Revenue proves that they are marketable as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble the goods cannot be charged excise duty, as held by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions starting from UOI v. DCM General Mills [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 177)] and reiterated as late as in the case of Moti Laminates, mentioned supra. On going through the impugned order we find that no doubt the adjudicating authority has given a finding that plaster of paris moulds are known as such in the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
