TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both appeals are also the same. Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988 is filed against the order of the GEGAT (Delhi), dated 2-2-1988 while Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 1997 is filed against the order of the CEGAT (Delhi), dated 27-2-1992. 2In Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988, the facts are. as follows : 3.The appellant manufactures Ion-Exchanges and an intermediate product called D.V.B. beads is consumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods inasmuch as the affidavits produced by the appellant to the contrary were not acceptable. He also held that unless the goods were proved by the Revenue to be plastic materials or resins, they could not be brought under Item No. 15A(1)(ii) and the matter required a remand to the Collector (Appeals) on that question. The other two Members (Shri S.D. Jha and Shri Harish Chander) observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tariff Item No. 15A(1)(ii) was not applicable and also that the first appellate authority had not gone into the marketability of the intermediate product as the said authority did not notice the evidence produced by the appellant. Even so, the Tribunal felt that its judgment dated 2-2-1988 (which is under appeal in Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988) was in point and covered the case against the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce is, in our opinion, to be separately gone into in conjunction with other evidence that is produced by the assessee. In the present case, the two members who have gone merely by the specification, have not gone into the evidence produced by the parties on the question of marketability. Hence on that question, the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal. On the other question relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
