Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. F.G.P. Ltd.

1. in the order impugned in the appeal, collector (appeals) has confirmed the finding of the assistant collector that the glass fibre manufactured and consumed captively in the production of glass tissue in the factory of m/s. f.g.p. ltd. the respondent, is not marketable and is not excisable. this is challenged in the appeal on the ground that marketability is not a criterion for excisability and that as long as the goods are included in the tariff, their marketability is not to be established by the department. these arguments were reiterated by the departmental representative.2. although mr. kishan sheth, factory manager of the respondent stated that mr. m.p. baxi, advocate would appear, mr. baxi did not appear and we therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.3. the department's appeal relies upon the tribunal's decision in safari industries lid. v. c.c.e. - 1991 (54) e.l.t. 308. the fact that goods are listed in the central excise tariff does not by itself dispense with the requirements that they should be marketable for them to be considered goods. in mori laminates p. ltd. v. c.c.e. -1995 (76) e.l.t. 241 the supreme court rejected this contention and held that the test of marketability is still required to be satisfied. this ground, therefore fails.4. the departmental representative attempted to argue that the fibre was marketable. this ground appears to have been taken by the department in the appeal against the assistant collector's order holding that the goods were not excisable since they were not marketable. this is however not a ground in the appeal before us and hence we do not propose to consider it.