TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that in paras 13 (c) and 14 of the order-in-original, the adjudication authority makes it amply clear that the goods in question are obtained after dipping (stage-1) (in which certain amount of rubber gets deposited) and the dispute of classification in this case is limited to the classification of stage-1 dipped fabric only. The fact that there was no ambiguity in this regard in the appellants mind is evident from the fact that the quantity and value on which the duty has been demanded were given by the appellants themselves vide their letter dated 24.7.1998 and those quantity and values clearly pertained to the goods obtained after stage-1 (after dipping) and before their rubberisation (referred to as stage-2 in para 13(c) of the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CEX/BMR/SCN/43/JKI/97-98/1228 dated 3.3.1997 August 1996 to February 1997 1,93,64,071/- Rs.10 lakhs under Section 173Q of CEA, 1944 OIO No. 132-134/CEX/DEMAND/AC/98 dated 31.3.98 CEX/BMR/SCN/59/JKI/97-98/1228 dated 26.9.1997 March 1997 to June 1997 1,15,86,658/- CEX/BMR/SCN/03/JKI/98/1228 dated 31.2.1998 July 1997 to December 1997 1,83,75,905/- CEX/BMR/SCN/JKI/98/993 dated 31.8.1998 January 1998 to May 1998 1,45,58,418/- Rs.20 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.05 as held by this Court in the case of MRF Ltd. However, if the product remains dipped tyre cord fabric then the Department has to give a finding both on marketability as well as on the manufacture of the product and decide the matter accordingly in the light of the judgment of this Court in MRF Ltd. (Heading 59.05 became 59.06) 3(1) The appellants have argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyond narrow compass laid down by the Supreme Court inasmuch as they considered the issue in relation to the particulars of dipped tyre cord fabrics and not rubberised tyre cord fabrics. 2) The dipped rubberised tyre cord fabrics is not marketable as it is not stable product and becomes stabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubberisation stage) while rubberised tyre cord fabrics is after rubberisation (stage-2). In other words dipped rubberised tyre cord fabrics becomes rubberised tyre cord fabrics only after rubberisation by passing through a calendar and applying rubber compound on both side of warp sheet on sophisticated machines. Revenue also argued that the impugned product is marketable as is evident from the fact that the appellants own unit used to transport by road the said product on payment of duty for use at their sister unit situated several hundred kilometres away. 6. We have considered the issue. It is evident that the impugned product is not rubberised cord fabric obtained after stage 2 mentioned above but one which is obtained after dipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.1998 and those quantity and values clearly pertained to the goods obtained after stage-1 (after dipping) and before their rubberisation (referred to as stage-2 in para 13(c) of the impugned order. Thus the appellants contention that the impugned goods were rubberised tyre cord fabrics obtained after stage 2 is an afterthought contrary to the evidence on record. As the rubber content after stage-1 (but before stage-2) is not pre-dominant, the impugned goods (which before rubberisation (stage-2) remain dipped tyre cord fabrics and do not become rubberised tyre cord fabrics of Chapter Heading 59.05 (now 59.06)] would fall under 59.02 as per the analysis of the Supreme Court in its remand order. 7. Regarding the marketability, it is seen t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being transported by road long distance and bought and sold. In view of the foregoing prima facie it is evident that the impugned goods are also marketable. 9. Thus prima facie the appellants have not been able to make a case for full waiver of pre-deposit. However, as the case involves issues relating to classification and marketability requiring a more detailed analysis of the contentions of both sides at the time of final hearing, we are of the view that a deposit of ₹ 3 crores (Rupees Three Crores) would meet the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. We therefore order pre-deposit of ₹ 3 crores within four weeks. Compliance to be reported on 21.10.2014. Subject to the compliance, the recovery of remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
