M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) The appellant in these two appeals is the same and the issues arising in both appeals are also the same. Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988 is filed against the order of the CEGAT (Delhi) dated 2-2-1988 while Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 1997 is filed against the order of the CEGAT (Delhi) dated 27-2-1992.
(2.) In Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1988, the facts are as follows: The appellant manufactures Ion-Exchanges and an intermediate product called D.V.B. beads is consumed in the course of the manufacture of the Ion Exchanges.
(3.) The dispute was confined to the question as to whether excise duty was leviable on the intermediate product. Three points arose before the CEGAT. 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 third point, all the three members were agreed that the demand for duty could not exceed six months preceding the show cause notice. But on the first and second points there was difference of opinion. One of the members Sri V. P. Gulati held that the disputed goods were distinct items as compared to the end product and that they are marketable goods inasmuch as the affidavits produced by the appellant to the contrary were not acceptable. He also held that unless the goods were proved by the Revenue to be plastic materials or resins, they could not be brought under item No. 15A(1)(ii) and the matter required a remand to the Collector (Appeals) on that question. 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 not marketable. 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 no longer in question. As to the classification, they felt no remand was necessary. The intermediate product squarely fell within entry 15A(1)(ii). 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. Against the dismissal of the appeal in the manner as stated above, the appellant has preferred this appeal.;