2017 (5) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ali, Chartered Accountant For the Appellant Shri K.T. Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellant has filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dt. 23/09/2003 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bangalore E-2 Division, reconsidered the issue after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and passed Order-in-Original No.99/02/E-2 dt. 09/12/2002 held that impregnated woven fabric is classifiable under chapter sub-heading 5903.29. The tubular bags manufactured by the appellants are entitled for Small Scale Industry exemption as provided under Notification No.8/2001. As stated above, inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-original. Hence the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed contrary to the provisions of the Act and binding judicial precedent. The matter pertains to chargeability of Central Excise duty on intermediary product .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE Vs. United Phosphorus Ltd. [2000(117) ELT 529 (SC)] 4.2. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the product in question is not marketable i.e. it is not bought and sold in the market but captively consumed in the manufacture of tubular bags. In fact, the appellant has not made even a single sale of the product in question. He further submitted that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... items. 7. In view of our discussion above and by following the decisions cited supra, we hold that the goods are not marketable and therefore are not excisable and no duty of Central Excise leviable on the subject goods. Consequently, we allow both the appeals of the appellant with consequential reliefs, if any. ( Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27/04/2017 )
C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X