2008 (12) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  The impugned order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 34,04,317/- stand passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded with direction. 2. The dispute is as to whether the appellants are entitled to import the inputs under exemption, in terms of Notification No. 52/2003. The said exemption .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e required to be held as excisable goods. The only reason adopted by the Commissioner for rejecting the said claim is that rags are not specified under any specific tariff heading. We do not, at this prima facie stage, find much force in the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. Prime criterion for holding an item as excisable is that the same is a result of manufacture and is marketable. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he goods are not specified by name, under any heading of Central Excise tariff, but otherwise satisfy the criteria of manufacture and marketable, the same would not become non-excisable. 5. In view of the above and the finding of manufacture and marketability, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out "prima facie case" in their favour so as to allow the stay petition u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X