Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise vs United Felt And Carpet on 28 May, 1999

Collector Of Central Excise vs M.R.F. Ltd. on 30 September, 1999

[1999 (111) E.L.T. 807, Collector of Central Excise v. United Felt and Carpet] So marketability is a basic condition to be satisfied for goods to become excisable to duty. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, the lower appellate authority, as a matter of fact, found that Bead Wire Rings are not marketable. No material has been placed before us to take a different view. So the goods in question are not to be classified under the Central Excise Tariff. In this view, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Felts & Carpets vs Collector Of Central Excise on 17 December, 2002

4. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon subsequent judgment of the CEGAT in Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. United Felt & Carpet [1999 (111) E.L.T. 807 (Tri.)] wherein according to him similar semi-finished floor coverings is held as non-excisable because it is non-marketable. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent pointed out that the aforesaid judgment depends upon facts as well as on the evidence brought on record. He drew our attention to the contention which was raised in that matter by the learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee before the Tribunal as narrated in paragraph 6. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that same item was all throughout manufactured by the appellant, there is no change of manufacturing process and that the item on which excise duty is sought to be levied was all throughout semi-finished product for manufacturing carpet and not the felt as known in the market.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1