Full Judgment
Following the Tribunal's decision and taking note of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhor Industries, he held that PU Foam rigid in question was not excisable. In another appeal Bearing No. E/771/91-C, he had followed his earlier decision and held that PU foam generated in the manner as in those proceedings did not amount to manufacture.
2. We have heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, for the respondents, Revenue and Shri V.S. Sejpal, C.A. we have gone through the facts on record and we find that the matter is entirely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Milton Trading Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (60) E.L.T. 619 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had referred to their earlier decisions in the case of Wimco Pen Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay(Tribunal), Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-IIEagle Flask (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, in Para 2 of their decision.
Following their earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that in situ process of forming polyurethane foam by interaction between polyols and isocyanates with the cavity of articles like water jug etc. did not amount to manufacture.
3. The Counsel for the respondents have also referred that the end situ foam could not be marketed and was not marketable. We find that there are a number of decisions of the Apex Court that if the goods could not be marketed and were not marketable, then they would not come within the purview of excisability.
4. As the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision, aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view already taken by learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in both these matters and as a result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.