G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The 2 separate Orders-in-Original came to be passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, one in respect of "Carbide Blank and the other in respect of "Carbide Plugs and Rods" manufactured by the appellants. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, disposed of the 2 appeals filed by the appellants against the said 2 orders by a consolidated order bearing Nos. 1278/79 and 1279/79 dated 25-9-19/9. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the Appellate Collector the appellants preferred a Revision Application to the Central Government which, in terms of section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.

2. Since there are 2 causes of action, the appellants were advised to file 2 separate appeals, which they have done.

3. The present part of the order deals with only the matter arising out of the Order-in-Original F. No, V/62/(17)617/76/TA dated 24-4-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik and the order-in-Appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, in relation thereto. The subject dealt with in these proceedings was "Carbide Blanks" manufactured by the appellants out of Tungsten powder. The blanks were used captively in the manufacture of Carbide Throwaway Inserts. They were classified by the Central Excise authorities under Item No. 62 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (CET for short) relating to "Tool Tips". This was on 6-11-1973.

4. By a letter dated 3-10-1977 the appellants sought exemption of the goods from duty on the ground that Carbide blanks were only intermediate goods used in the manufacture of Carbide Throwaway Inserts; that they were not sold in the market as such and were not capable of being used unless they were converted into Inserts. After hearing the appellants, the Assistant Collector held that the Carbide blanks had been correctly classified under Item 62-CET on the ground that the raw material (Tungsten Powder) and the manufacturing process was one and the same for both Carbide blanks and Tool Tips, that Carbide blanks could be used as Tool Tips and that the fact that they were not sold in the market and that they were captively consumed could not alter their dutiability under Item 62-CET.

5. Aggrieved with this order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who rejected the contention that the Carbide blanks were only intermediate goods, that they were not marketed and that they could not be used as Tool Tips. He held that the blanks had assumed an identifiable shape and a particular use. The use might be for captive consumption or for sale. In this view of the matter he rejected the appeal.

6. It is against this order that the appellants filed a Revision Application to the Central Government which, as earlier pointed out, stands transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.

7. In the Memorandum of Revision Application (hereinafter referred to as appeal) it is contended that the Carbide blanks are not finished product, that they cannot be used unless they are subjected to further process of manufacture unlike Carbide Throwaway Inserts which are finished product and could be straightway used. However, the Central Excise authorities had misconstrued the Carbide blanks to be Sintered Carbide Tool Tips and hence classified them under Item 62-CET. While not denying that goods used for captive consumption were liable to pay duty unless exempted, the appellants contended that the subjected Sintered blanks were not goods since they were not a completed or finished product. The Department had not shown that they were marketable and, therefore, they were goods.

8. Shri Kamal Parsuram Puria, Counsel for the appellants reiterated the submissions contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR, represented the Respondent.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions contained in the