BATA INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

                    [2010] 4 S.C.R. 501


                      BATA INDIA LTD.                              A
                              v.
  COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
          (Civil Appeal No. 2377 of 2002)
                       APRIL 12, 2010
                                                                   B
 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,
                             JJ.]

    Central Excise Act, 1944:
                                                                   c
     s.2(d) - Excisable goods - Unvulcanised sandwiched
fabric assembly produced during the manufacturing process
of footwear in assessee's factory and captively consumed -
Held: Cannot be termed as "goods" - In the absence of proof
of marketability, the intermediate product would not be goods      D
much less excisable goods - Such a product is excisable
only if it is a complete product having commercial identity
capable of being sold to a consumer which has to be
established by revenue - No evidence produced by revenue
to show that the intermediate product "unvulcanised                E
sandwiched fabric" as such was capable of being marketed -
The mere fact that the said product was entrusted outside for
some job work such as stitching is not an indication to show
that it is commercially distinct or marketable product - Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Sub-heading number 5905.10 -
Notification No. 143194-CE dated 7. 12. 94.                        F

   Notification No.143194-CE dated 7.12.94 - Exemption
under - Held: Available in respect of unvulcanised
sandwiched fabric assembly produced during the
manufacturing process of footwear if captively used for the        G
manufacture of exempted footwear.

     Words and phrases: 'goods' - Meaning of, in the context
of s.2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
                              501                                  H
    502    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2:010] 4 S.C.R.


A       The appellant-assessee has been in the business of
   manufacture of footwear. For the manufacture of foot
   wear, it purchased various raw materials from the market
   such as fabrics, rubbers, chemicals, solvents etc. During
   the manufacturing process, various chemicals/rubbers/
B solvents etc., are mixed together and a thin layer of such
   mixed materials is sandwiched in between two sheets of
   textile fabric, in running length, througlh a three bowl
  calendering machine. The product is later cut and
  stitched according to the assessee's requirements and
c in-process materials are used as shoe-uppers in the foot
  wear. Such fabrics are also at times sent to job workers
  for stitching purposes only and the fabric sandwiched
  with the mixed materials are inputs of 1the intermediate
  stage during the course of manufacture of footwear.
  Vulcanisation of the foot wear takes place only after
0
  completing the entire process and them it becomes a
  finished product as a footwear, made available in the
  market and acquires commercial identiity and turns out
  to be a commercially known product.

E      The question which arose for consideration in the
  instant appeal was whether 'unvulcan1ised sandwiched
  fabric assembly' produced in the assessee's factory and
  captively consumed can be termed as "goods" and can
  be classified as "rubberized cotton fabrics" falling under
F sub-heading number 5905.10 of the, schedule to the
  Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The unvulcanised sandwiched fabric is
G used as an intermediate product by the assessee. The
  burden to show that the product in question is marketed
  or capable of being bought or sold in the market so as
  to attract duty is entirely on the Revenue. Admittedly, the
  assessee is not marketing the product. Revenue did not
H
BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 503
             EXCISE, NEW DELHI
succeed in establishing that the product in question was A
either marketed or was capable of being marketed. The
test of marketability is that the product which is made
liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in
which it emerges. No evidence was produced by the
Revenue to show the product unvulcanised sandwiched B
fabric as such was capable of being marketed, without
further processing. The mere fact that the product in
question was entrusted outside for some job work such
as stitching is not an indication to show that the product
is commercially distinct or marketable product. Without C
proof of marketability, the intermediate product would not
be goods much less excisable goods. Such a product is
excisable only if it is a complete product having
commercial identity capable of being sold to a consumer
which. has to be established by the Revenue. [Paras .12
and 18] [510-A-E; 513-E-F]                                 0

    Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. (1997)
5 SCC 767; Union of India v Delhi Cloth and General Mills
Company Limited AIR 1963 SC 791; AP. State Electricity
Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (1994) 2         E
sec 428, relied on.
     Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677; UOI v. Delhi Cloth & General
Mills Co. 1997 (1) ELT J-199, referred to.
                                                                 F
    1.2. The test report dated 25.10.1994 of the Chemical
Examiner, SPB Hand Book of rubber products and the
statement of the Superintendent (Supply and
Transportation) of the assessee's company do not show
that the product in question was capable of being                G
marketed. The mere theoretical possibility of the product
being sold is not sufficient but there should be
commercial capability of being sold. The materials

                                                                 H
    504       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   produced by the assessee would show that the product
    in question was only an intermediary product generally
    used for captive consumption which has no commercial
    identity as such. [Para 19) [513-G-H; 1514-A-C]

       Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. (2002) 7
B SCC 435; Gip/a Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore
  2008 (225) ELT 403 (SC); Gujarat Nam1ada Valley Fert. Co.
  Ltd. v. Collector of Ex.& Cus.(2005) 7 sec 94, relied on.

       Union of India (UOI) v. Bata India Ud. 1993 (68) ELT 756
C (Cal), referred to.

        2. By Notification No.143/94-CI:: dated 7.12.94 the
    product in question stands exempted/ if captively used for
    the manufacture of exempted footwEiar. [Para 21] [514-G]
D                         Case Law Reference:
          (1997) 2 sec 677      referred tc1     Para 10, 13

          (2002) 1 sec 435      relied on        Para 10, 15

E         2008 (225) ELT 403 (SC) relied on      Para 10, 17

          (2005) 1 sec 94       relied on        Para 10, 16

          1997 (1) ELT J-199    referred to      Para 11

          (1997) 5 sec 767      relied on        Para 12
F
          AIR 1963 SC 791       relied on        Para 12

          (1994) 2 sec 428      relied oni       Para 12

          1993 (68) ELT 756 (Cal) referr·ed to   Para 20
G       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2377 of 2002.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 24.12.2001 of the
    CEGAT, Eastern Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. ER-52of1998.
H
BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 505
             EXCISE, NEW DELHI
    Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Mallika Joshi, Rashmi         A
Malhotra, Rajan Narain for the Appellant.

    V. Shekhar, T.V. Ratnam, Paari Vendaan, B. Krishna
Prasad for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     B

     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that arises
for consideration in this appeal is whether unvulcanised
sandwiched fabric assembly produced in the Assessee's
factory and captively consumed can be termed as "goods" and C
can be classified as "rubberized cotton fabrics" falling under .
sub-heading number 5905.10 of the schedule to the Central
Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

     2. The above question came up for consideration before
the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for     D
short 'the Tribunal). The _Member (Judicial) took the view that
the product would not attract duty unless it is established that
the goods in question is marketable or capable of being
marketed as a distinct product and that the Revenue has failed
to discharge the burden to prove the marketability and             E
dutiability of the intermediate product in the manufacture of
rubber/canvas foot wear. The Member (Technical), however,
disagreed with that finding and held that the Revenue has
discharged its burden and took the view that the goods in
question attracts duty.                                            F

     3. In view of the difference of opinions expressed by the
two members, the matter was placed before a third member
who concurred with the view expressed by the Member
(Technical) and a final order was passed on the above issue        G
by the Tribunal on 24.12.2001 holding that double textured
rubberized fabric/unvulcanised sandwiched fabric is an
excisable product liable to central excise duty. No opinion was
expressed by any of the members on the question of
exemption, applicability of notification and the quantum of        H
    506       SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS               [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A penalty imposed and those issues were left to be considered
  when the appeal is finally posted for hearing.

          4. Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal dated
    24.12.2001 the assessee has come up before us with this
    appeal.
8
          5. The Assessee is a well known manufacturer of foot
     wear. For the manufacture of foot wear, various raw materials
     are purchased by the assessee from the market and I or from
    their respective manufacturers such as fabrics, rubbers,
C   chemicals, solvents etc. During the proc:ess of manufacturing
    of foot wear various chemicals I rubbers I solvents etc., are
    mixed together and a thin layer of such mixed materials is
    sandwiched in between two sheets of tHxtile fabric, in running
    length, through a three bowl calendering machine. The product
D   is later cut· and stitched accordinu to the assessee's
    requirements and in-process materials are used as shoe-
    uppers in the foot wear. Such fabrics are also at times sent to
    job workers for stitching purposes only and the fabric
    sandwiched with the mixed materials are inputs of the
E   intermediate stage during the course of manufacture of
    footwear. Vulcanisation of the foot wea1r takes place only after
    completing the entire process and then it would be a finished
    product as a footwear, made available in the market and
    acquires commercial identity and turns ,out to be a commercially
F   known product.

       6. The Collector of Central Excis13 (in short the Collector)
  noticed that during the manufacture of foot wear the assessee
  manufactures an excisable product called double textured
  fabric which is further used as upper material in the manufacture
G of foot wear and this double textur1ad fabric is nothing but
  rubberized, water proof fabric with a thin layer of rubber
  sandwiched between two sheets of cotton fabric in running
  length. As a result of that process a double textured fabric
  emerges as a distinct product with specific properties and
H character other than that of original fabric used as input which
 BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 507
  EXCISE, NEW DELHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
is known in commercial trade parlance as double textured           A
fabric which is used in considerable quantities for making rain-
coats, holdalls, hand bags etc.

       7. The Collector therefore, came to the conclusion that this
  double textured fabrics are marketable products fulfilling the .
                                                                     8
  requirement of the definition of excisable goods as per
  Section2(d) of the Central Excise 1944 (in short the Act)
  attracting the levy of central excise duty under the Act. The
  Collector then issued a show cause notice dated 29.03.1995
  to the assessee stating it had manufactured and cleared double C
  textured fabric valued at Rs.7,96,43,247/- for captive
  consumption in the manufacture of shoe-uppers used in
  2,51,29,646 numbers of exempted canvas shoes without
  payment of duty amounting to Rs.88,80, 782/- during the period
  from 01.04.1990 to 31.08.1994 without the cover of excise gate
  pass, without filing classification list, price list without D
  accounting for production and clearance in the statutory central
  excise records and without observing other formalities
  prescribe<;l under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The
  assessee was directed to show cause why the above amount
  be not recovered from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central E
  Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 (A) of the Act and also
  to show cause why penal action be not taken against them
  under Rule 173 Q(1) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Yet
  another show cause notice dated 30.03.1995 also was issued
  to the assessee claiming duty amounting to Rs. 5,95, 181 F
  during the period from 01.09.1994 to 06.12.1994 stating that
  the assessee had failed to pay duty for the rubberized fabric
. manufactured and cleared for captive consumption for the
  above period as well and to show cause why penal action be
  not initiated under Rule 1730(1) of Rules 1944.                   .G

     8. The assessee filed detailed objections to the show
cause notices on 22.09.1995 and 19.02.1996 respectively, and
the matter was heard by the Commissioner, Central Excise who
confirmed the demands made in both the show cause notices
                                                                    H
    508      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A and a total amount of Rs.89,77,064 was demanded from the
  assessee. The Commissioner of Central Excise also imposed
  a penalty of Rupees 1 crore on the assessiae under Section
  173 0(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the
  above mentioned order the assessee approaiched the Tribunal
B and the Tribunal by a majority order held that double textured
  rubberized fabrics I vulcanized stitched fabric is an excisable
  product attracting duty the correctness or otherwise of that
  order is the issue that has come up for consideration before
  us.
c        9. Shri Ravindra Narain, learned counsEil appearing for the
   assessee submitted that the Tribunal has Gommitted a grave
   error in holding that the product manufactumd by the assessee
   for their captive consumption is liable to du~f under the Act. He
   submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
D manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee and the
  question whether that intermediate product has commercial
  identity or marketability. Learned counsel also submitted that
  the Revenue has not discharged their burden of proof to
  establish that the product is excisable and marketable and
E capable of being marketed and that the Revenue has only
  produced three documents viz., the test report dated
  20.10.1994, the SSB hand book of rubb13r products and the
  statement of Superintendent (Supply and Transportation) of the
  assessee's company which are insufficient to hold that product
F is marketable or capable of being marketed. On the other hand
  assessee has produced sufficient materiah; to establish that the
  material used by the assessee is not marketable and has no
  commercial identity.

       10. Shri Narain also submitted that marketability is an
G essential ingredient to hold whether a product is dutiable or
  excisable and it is for the Revenue to prove the same. Learned
  counsel also submitted that it is not the function of the Tribunal
  to enter into that arena and make suppositions, rather it should
  examine the question whether sufficient materials have been
H
    BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 509
     EXCISE, NEW DELHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

  produced by the Revenue to discharge its burden. In support          A
  of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on various
  decisions of this court such as Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. vs.
  Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677;
  Union of India vs. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. (2002) 7 SCC
  435; Cipla Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore 2008            B
  (225) ELT 403 (SC).; Gujarat Nermada Valley Fert. Co. Ltd.
  vs. Collector of Ex.& Cus.(2005) 7 SCC 94.

        11. Mr. V. Sekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the materials         C
  produced by the Revenue would be sufficient to hold that the
  product in question is a distinct product having commercial
  identity and is capable of being marketed. Learned counsel
  submitted that by the process undertaken by the assessee a
  new product emerges which is capable of being brought to
  market or being sold. Learned senior counsel also submitted          D
  that the material is also being sent out of the factory to the job
  workers for stitching purposes and is brought back from them,
  and, hence the said product is a commercially distinct product
  liable to be classified under the sub-heading 5905.10 of
  schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. Reference was also made       E
  to the judgment of this court in UOI vs. Delhi Cloth & General
  Mills Co. 1997 (1) ELT J-199. Referring to the division bench
  judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in (1993) 68 ELT
  756 (Calcutta), learned counsel submitted that the Calcutta High
  Court on identical products, dealt with by the assessee, decided     F
  against the assessee.

         12. We have heard counsel on ~ither side aUength and
    have also gone through the show cause notices issued by the
    Collector, objections filed by the assessee and the order. G
    passed by the Commissioner, views expressed by both· the
    members and the order, passed py the Tribunal on the question
    of exigibility of the product. The' process undertaken by the
    assessee has been elaboratefy.aealt with .in the above
· ·.mentioned orders and it is unnecessarytOreiterate the same.
                                                                  H
    510       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010) 4 S.C.R.


A Suffice it to say that the product in question is used as an
  intermediate product, goes to make the component for the final
  product. The burden to show that the product in question is
  marketed or capable of being bought or sold in the market so
  as to attract duty is entirely on the Revenue. Reference may be
B made to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Delhi
  Cloth and General Mills Co. (1997) 5 SCC 767. The test of
  marketability often called 'Vendability test' has been elaborately
  considered by a constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in
  Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company
c Limited AIR 1963 SC 791. This legal position has been
  reiterated by this Court in A.P. Stafo Electricity Board vs.
  Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad ( 1994) 2 SCC 428
  and various other decisions, wherein 11his Court held that the
  marketability is essentially a question of fact to be decided on
D the facts of each case and there can be no generalization, and
  the fact that goods are not in fact marketed is of rio relevance
  and the question whether they are capable of being marketed.
  Admittedly, the assessee is not marketing the product but still
  the question is whether the product is capable of being
  marketed.
E
         13. The Revenue in this case has not produced any
    material before the Tribunal to show that the product is either
    been marketed or capable of being marketed but expressed
    its opinion unsupported by any relevant materials. This Court
F   in Hindustan Ferrado Limited (supra) explained the function of
    the Tribunal in such situations as follows:-

                 "It is not the function of the Tribunal to enter into the
          arena and make suppositions that are tantamount to the
          evidence that a party before it has failed to lead. Other than
G
          supposition, there is no material on record that suggests
          that a small scale or medium scale manufacturer of brake
          linings and clutch facings "would be interested in buying"
          the said rings or that they are marketable at all. As to the
          brittleness of the said rings, it was for the Revenue to
H
 BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 511
  EXCISE, NEW DELHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     demonstrate that the appellants' averment in this behalf             A
     was incorrect and not for the Tribunal to assess their
     brittleness for itself. Articles in question in an appeal are
     shown to the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to comprehend
     what it is that it is dealing with. It is not an invitation to the
     Tribunal to give its opinion thereon, brushing aside the             B
     evidence before it. The technical knowledge of members
     of the Tribunal makes for better appreciation of the record,
     but not its substitution."

      14. In the above case this Tribunal was concerned with
articles such as rings punched from asbestos boards and two
                                                                          c
types of asbestos fabrics, namely, special fabrics in coil of
continuous length and M.R. grey in rolls. This Court noticed that
the Revenue had not produced any evidence to establish that
the said rings fell within Item 22F of Schedule to the Act and
held in favour of the assessee.                                           D

     15. In Sonic Electrochem Limited (supra) this Court was
dealing with the question whether plastic body, a part of
electronic mosquito repellant and fragrant mat are chargeable
to excise duty under Articles 5(f) of Notification 160/68-CE              E
dated March 1, 1986 and sub-heading 3307 .49 respectively of
the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985. In that case, this Court
held that in order to establish that goods are liable to duty, two
test have to be satisfied viz., (a) manufacture and (b)
marketability. On the question of marketability of the articles this      F
Court held as follows:-

     " ..... Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The
     essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in the
     shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are
     to be found, it is the commercial identity of the articles           G
     known to the market for being got and sold. The fact that
     product in question is generally not been got and sold or
     has no demand in the market would be irrelevant. The
     plastic body of EMR does not satisfy the aforementioned
     criteria. There are some competing manufacturers of EMR.             H
    512       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 4 S.C.R.


A         Each is having a different plastic body to suit its design
          and requirement. If one goes to the market to purchase
          plastic body of EMR of the respondents either for
          replacement or otherwise one cannot get it in the market
          because at present it is not a commercia1lly known product.
B         For these reasons, the plastic body, which is a part of the
          EMR of the respondents, is not 'goods' so as to be liable
          to duty as parts of EMR under para S(d) of the said
          exemption notification."

          16. In Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Corporation
C (supra), this Court was dealing with the quostion whether the
  intermediate chemicals which are formed in the process of
  manufacture Butachlor are liable to tax under the Salt Act and
  held that the test report produced by the Revenue will not
  establish the marketability of the product. It further held that
D unless the product is capable of being marketed and is known
  to those who are in the market as having an identity as distinctly
  identifiable that the article is subject to excise duty, the product
  cannot be treated as a product that is marketable. Mark~tability
  cannot be established by mere stability of the product.
E Something more would have to be shown to establish that the
  products are known in the market as commercial product.

       17. In Gip/a Limited (supra) this Court was examining the
  question whether Benzyl Methyl Salycylate (BMS) is marketable
F and therefore liable to excise duty. After referring to various
  earlier decisions of this Court , it was held that marketability is
  an essential ingredient to hold that an article is dutiable or
  excisable to duty and it is well established principle of law that
  the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the goods are
G marketable or excisable and held that the product in question
  was neither marketed nor marketable and was only an
  intermediate product. It is useful to refer to the law laid down
  by this Court which reads as follows:-

          "Since marketability is an essential ingredient to hold that
H         a product is dutiable or exigible, it was for the Revenue to
  BATA INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL 513
   EXCISE, NEW DELHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
      prove that the product was marketable or was capable of         A
      being marketed. Manufacturing activity, by itself, does not
      prove the: marketability. The product produced must be a
      distinct commodity known in the common parlance to the
      commercial community for the purpose of buying and
      selling. Since there is no evidence of either buying or         B
      selling in the present case, it cannot be held that the
      product in question was marketable or was capable of
      being marketed. Mere transfer of BMS by the appellant
      from its factory at Bangalore to its own unit at Patalganga
      for manufacture of final product was either marketed or was     c
      marketable."

         18. Revenue in this case has not succeeded in
  establishing that the product in question was either marketed
  or was capable of being marketed. The test of marketability is
  tliat the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable   D
  in the condition in which it emerges. No evidence has been
  produced by the Revenue to show the product unvulcanised
  sandwiched fabric as such is capable of being marketed,
  without further processing. The question is not whether there is
  an hypothetical possibility of a purchase and sale of the           E
. commodity but whether there is sufficient proof that the product
  is commercially known. The mere fact that the product in
  question was entrusted outside for some job work such as
  stitching is not an indication to show that the product is
  commercially distinct or marketable product. Without proof of       F
  marketability the intermediate product would not be goods much
  less excisable goods. Such a product is excisable only if it is
  a complete product having commercial identity capable of being
  sold to a consumer which has to be established by the Revenue.
                                                                      G
      19. The test report dated 25.10.1994 of the Chemical
 Examiner, SPB hand book of rubber products and the statement
 of the Superintendent (Supply and Transportation) of the
 assessee's company do not show that the product in question
 is capable of being marketed. The mere theoretical possibility       H
    514    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A of the product being sold is not sufficient but there should be
  commercial capability of being sold. Theory and practice will
  not go together when we examine the marketability of a product.
  On the other hand materials produced by the assessee i.e.
  affidavit of Mr. Shomnath Chokravarty, Consultant - Rubber and
B Plastic Technology, affidavit of the Production Manager of the
  assessee Company, certificate of Prof. C.K.Das, llT,
  Kharagpur, affidavit of Ms. Parvati Pada Mukherjee, certificate
  from Footwear Design and Development Institute, Ministry of
  Commerce, Government of India and The Vanderbilt Rubber
c Handbook, would show that the product in question is only an
  intermediary product generally used for captive consumption
  which has no commercial identity as such.

       20. We are also of the view that no re!iance can be placed
  on the Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court
D reporteQ in Union of India (UOI) vs. Bata India Ltd. 1993 (68)
  ELT,756' (Ce1I) since this Court while dismissing
  SLP(C)No.6146 of 1993 filed by the asse:ssee against the
  above judgment clearly opined that the merits of the case was
  not being looked into since the operative portion of the
E judgment was in favour of the assessee herein and hence the
  question as to whether the product was excisable or not was
  not decided.

        21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are
F inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the order of the
  Tribunal and quash the show cause notices issued to the
  assessee since the Revenue had not produced any relevant
  materials to show the marketability of the product. We are
  informed that vide Notification No.143/94-CE dated 7.12.94 the
G product in question stands exempted if captively used for the
  manufacture of exempted footwear. Civil appeal is, therefore,
  allowed as above, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the
  appeal without delay.

    D.G.                                        Appeal allowed.
H