9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equal to the amount of duty to maintain this appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant has filed application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay which came up for consideration. 2. It may be mentioned at the outset that 369 units of pre-fabricated structural components (pre-cast segment) have been released to the appellant on execution of bond in view of the ongoing construction under the Delhi Metro Rail Project in public interest. This was in fact the second-time release. Earlier also, similar goods had been seized and released on execution of bond that the appellant will get registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, which it did not do. 3. The appellant is a civil contractor and it has entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of 'girders' is a pan of turn-key contract and it does not result in 'marketable' goods. He also submitted that where the goods are manufactured for a particular location and is 'location specific', it can not be said to be marketable as held by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees vs. CCE, A.P., 2007 (216) ELT 513(SC). Shri Sahu referred to several other judgements in support of his argument on the point of marketability. 6. On behalf of the Revenue, it was submitted that actual sale of the goods is not essential to constitute 'marketability' and even when goods are sold to manufacturer himself for self use or use by a single buyer, the test of marketability would stand satisfied. Learned DR submitted that the issue is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercial identity of the article known to the market for being bought and sold. The fact that the product in question is generally not being bought and sold or has no demand in the market is irrelevant. In the facts of the case, the goods, namely, plastic body of electro mosquito repellent was held to be neither a standard item nor goods generally dealt in the market and therefore, it had no commercial identity and hence not exigible to excise duty. 8. These observations, in our opinion, support the case of the Revenue and go against the case of the appellant that since the girders are tailor-made for a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
