1998 (4) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal is whether the products manufactured by the appellants known as Steel Benches is marketable or not so as to attract excise duty under the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri P.N. Kaul, learned Advocate, submitted that four moulds are kept on a hollow container which is pushed m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral Excise v. Amaratara Industries, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal) and Wimco Pen Company v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) in which it was held that marketability is essential ingredient for dutiability of the products. He also submits that the department has not produced any evidence to show that this product is capable of being sold in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ricated the impugned item for their own purpose for conveying moulds upto the stage of platform. The department has not adduced any evidence to show that the impugned product is capable of being sold in the market. The mere use by the assessees themselves cannot give it character of Bench and sold in the market ordinarily. In view of these facts and circumstances and in the absence of any proof ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X