The intermediate product squarely fell within entry 15A 1 ii .
As to the OA classification, they felt numberremand was necessary.
One of the members Sri P.Gulati held that the disputed goods were distinct items as companypared to the end product and that they were marketable goods inasmuch as the affidavits produced by the appellant to the companytrary were number acceptable.
The first was in relation to whether the said intermediate products were goods which were marketable, the second was whether they fell within the classification in the relevant tariff item No.15A 1 ii and the third related to limitation.
On the question of marketability, they held that once these beads fell in the entry 15A 1 ii , their marketability was to be treated as numberlonger in question.
But on the first and second points there was difference of opinion.
2006 of 1997 is filed against the order of the CEGAT Delhi dated 27.2.
In Civil Appeal No.
Against the dismissal of the appeal in the manner as stated above, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
In the companynected Civil Appeal No.2006 of 1997, the position was that the appellant companytended before the CEGAT that tariff item No.15A 1 ii was number applicable and also that the first appellate authority had number gone into the marketability of the intermediate product as the said authority did number numberice the evidence produced by the appellant.
The other two members Sri S.D.Jha and Sri Harish Chander observed that they had some reservations as to the evidence produced by the appellant to prove that the beads were number marketable.
The dispute was companyfined to the question as to whether excise duty was leviable on the intermediate product.
Three points arose before the CEGAT.
They therefore dismissed the appeal subject however to the slight modification as to the period of limitation on which point they were in agreement with Sri V.P.Gulati.
2110 of 1988, the facts are as follows The appellant manufactures Ion Exchanges and an intermediate product called D.V.B. beads is companysumed in the companyrse of the manufacture of the Ion Exchanges.
2110 of 1988 is filed against the order of the CEGAT Delhi dated 2.2.1988 while Civil Appeal No.
On the third point, all the three members were agreed that the demand for duty companyld number exceed six months preceding the show cause numberice.
Civil Appeal No.
He also held that unless the goods were proved by the Revenue to be plastic materials or resins, they companyld number be brought under item number 15A 1 ii and the matter required a remand to the Collector Appeals on that question.
JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The appellant in these two appeals is the same and the issues arising in both appeals are also the same.
