JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Duty of Rs. 11,59,514/-, and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh are required to be deposited.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) order confirmed the order of the Joint Commissioner which was passed in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal. The Joint Commissioner was required to consider whether the parts of steel sheets, which were subjected to cutting, punching and other similar operations to enable them to be used in building of bus bodies on chassis. were marketable or not. The Joint Commissioner has found the goods to be marketable because they were capable of being put to use by person who might manufacture the same type of body. This view has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The counsel for the applicants contends that the view expressed in this order is nothing more than supposition and there is no evidence to show that the goods were in fact marketable. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (89) ELT 16. In that judgment, the Court disapproved the reasoning of the Tribunal that asbestos rings and fabrics manufactured by Hindustan Ferado would be marketable because small scale or medium scale manufacturer of brake linings and clutch facing would be interested in buying these goods saying that this view was based on supposition and there was no material on record to show that the small or medium scale manufacturer would be interested in buying the goods. The ratio of this decision would prima facie to the facts before us.
4. Accordingly, we waive deposit of the duty and stay its recovery.