- (1.)These three Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the impugned order in Civil Appeal No. 3409/2004 and 5084/2004 merely follows the order impugned in Civil Appeal No. 7262/2003.
(2.)The question involved in these cases is whether an intermediate product manufactured by the Respondent, namely, tyre bead wire ring, is excisable to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was excisable to duty relying upon : (a) the fact that one M/s. Hindustan tyre Company, Ludhiana was paying duty on similar goods; (b) An affidavit of one Shri Surinder singh, partner of M/s. Gurpreet rubber Industries to the effect that they purchased bead wire rings from M/s. Khosla Enterprises for use in Animal Drawn Vehicles and moped tyres; (c) Statement of one Shri Om Parkash pahwa, partner of M/s. Ram lubhaya and Company, stating that they manufacture tyre bead rings on job work basis for M/s. Ralson (India) Ltd. ; and (d) Supplementary classification list filed by one M/s. Govind Rubber limited.
(3.)It appears that the said Shri Surinder singh and Shri Om Parkash Pahwa did not subject themselves to cross-examination even though a request for cross-examining these parties was made. Attention of the commissioner was drawn to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central excise, Panaji - Goa v. M. R. F. Ltd. reported in 2000 (115) E. L. T. 85. The Commissioner distinguished the decision by holding that in this case there was proof of marketability.