TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that the printed stationary of the appellant is marketable. It is well settled law that Revenue has to discharge the burden of test of marketability of the product - In the present case, as the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of test of marketability, the demand of duty cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: E/572/2010, E/86454/2013 - A/85160-85161/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) and Shri M.R. Melvin Superintendent (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant contended before the lower authorities that the stationary items are solely to be used by the various offices of MCGM and it cannot be sold in the open market and that since, the goods are not marketable, the same is not excisable. In this context, the appellant has strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Chief Manager (P S), Central Railway Vs. CCE, Mumbai I, 2015 (328) ELT 296 (Tri.-Mumbai), amongst others. 4. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the present case, the relevant portion in the case of Deputy Chief Manager (P S), Central Railway (supra) is re-produced below:- From above judgments it is crystal clear that product in question being in the form of various printed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that this very product are marketable. Therefore admittedly the Revenue has not discharged the burden lies on them as regard the test of marketability of the product. The judgments in this regard relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel squarely applicable to the present case that if the burden of proof of marketability does not discharged by the Revenue by producing the evidence then claim of appellant that the goods in question is not marketable must be accepted and no contrary view can be taken. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that even though the goods were not sold as such, they were sent/transferred to their own other offices, outside the factory. It is further observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
