Dinodia Textile Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. matter called. none for the appellant. notice of hearing was sent to the appellant, but there is no response from them. accordingly, we have heard the ld. sdr shri a.k. agarwal for the revenue. we have also gone through the memorandum of appeal and the grounds of appeal.2. the appellants herein are manufacturing wadded cotton fabrics. the process of manufacture of said goods, described by the revenue was quilted fabric or wadded fabric, is that the fabric is stitched with wading of cotton, thereafter it is being sold by the appellants to the manufacturers of coir for coir articles as well as garment manufacturers for making of quilted garments. from reading of description under tariff heading 56.01, it is observed that such goods are covered by the said description namely "wadding of textile materials and articles thereof; textile fabrics not exceeding 5 m.m. in length (flock), textile dust and mill neps". lower appellate authority found the said goods matching with description under the aforesaid tariff heading and, therefore, he is of the prima facie view that the said goods manufactured by the appellants are likely to be covered by the said tariff heading. he has, therefore, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for giving an opportunity to the appellants to make out its case against classification of said goods under tariff heading 56.01.3. it is against the said order passed by the collector (appeals) that the appellants has come up with the appeal to the tribunal. we are of the view, after having gone through the findings of the revenue and materials on record that the impugned order is correct in law and on facts. the lower appellate authority has merely remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to rebut against the classification of the said goods under tariff heading 56.01. there is nothing wrong in that. now it is for the appellant to rebut the department's case for classification of the goods under tariff heading 56.01.4. another point taken by the appellants in their appeal have been that the goods are not marketable and the deptt. has not proved the marketability of the goods. this plea, to our mind, is not correct. as rightly pointed out by the ld. sdr shri a.k. agarwal that the goods after being manufactured are being sold to the coir industries or garment manufacturer. this is clear from the impugned order as well as order-in-original. therefore the marketability of the goods is well established. it is not material for excisability that the goods are used as an intermediate product or some other final product. therefore the plea of the appellant that the goods manufactured by them are only an intermediate product for other final products manufactured by coir industries or garment industries is no ground for the non-excisability of the present goods.5. therefore, we do not find any substance in the appellant's appeal and we reject the same.6. adjudicating authority will now proceed with the de novo proceedings as directed by the lower appellate authority for determining the proper classification of the goods. appeal disposed of in above manner.

Judgment:
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. Notice of hearing was sent to the appellant, but there is no response from them. Accordingly, we have heard the Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal for the Revenue. We have also gone through the Memorandum of Appeal and the grounds of appeal.

2. The appellants herein are manufacturing wadded cotton fabrics. The process of manufacture of said goods, described by the Revenue was quilted fabric or wadded fabric, is that the fabric is stitched with wading of cotton, thereafter it is being sold by the appellants to the manufacturers of coir for coir articles as well as garment manufacturers for making of quilted garments. From reading of description under Tariff Heading 56.01, it is observed that such goods are covered by the said description namely "wadding of Textile materials and articles thereof; textile fabrics not exceeding 5 m.m. in length (flock), textile dust and mill neps". Lower Appellate Authority found the said goods matching with description under the aforesaid tariff heading and, therefore, he is of the prima facie view that the said goods manufactured by the appellants are likely to be covered by the said tariff heading. He has, therefore, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for giving an opportunity to the appellants to make out its case against classification of said goods under Tariff Heading 56.01.

3. It is against the said order passed by the Collector (Appeals) that the appellants has come up with the appeal to the Tribunal. We are of the view, after having gone through the findings of the Revenue and materials on record that the impugned order is correct in law and on facts. The lower appellate authority has merely remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority for giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to rebut against the classification of the said goods under Tariff Heading 56.01. There is nothing wrong in that. Now it is for the appellant to rebut the department's case for classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 56.01.

4. Another point taken by the appellants in their appeal have been that the goods are not marketable and the Deptt. has not proved the marketability of the goods. This plea, to our mind, is not correct. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal that the goods after being manufactured are being sold to the coir industries or garment manufacturer. This is clear from the impugned order as well as Order-in-Original. Therefore the marketability of the goods is well established. It is not material for excisability that the goods are used as an intermediate product or some other final product. Therefore the plea of the appellant that the goods manufactured by them are only an intermediate product for other final products manufactured by coir industries or garment industries is no ground for the non-excisability of the present goods.

5. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the appellant's appeal and we reject the same.

6. Adjudicating Authority will now proceed with the de novo proceedings as directed by the lower appellate authority for determining the proper classification of the goods. Appeal disposed of in above manner.