STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jay Savla, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed the stay petition and that in the stay petition they had submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had dispensed with pre -deposit of duty inasmuch as their prayers in the writ petition against Cols. A&B have been granted and in those prayers they had requested for dispensing with the execution of bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the demand of duty. He submits that in this view of the matter the case may be heard without insisting on pre -deposit.

(2.) LD . Counsel submits that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Phoenix Mills and the Tribunal under its Final Order No. 115/99 -C, dated 12 -2 -1999 [1999 (113) E.L.T. 1018 (Tribunal)] remanded the matter observing inter alia :

(3.) LD . Counsel submitted that in their case an additional requirement may be added about marketability of the goods. He submits that printing paste, the product in dispute, is not marketed by them and since it was not marketed in terms of the various rulings of the Apex Court, the product is not liable to duty. He, therefore, prays that on identical terms, their case may also be referred back to the adjudicating authority.