Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether purified spent solvents or waste methanol, after recovery and reuse, amounted to excisable goods and whether the demand of duty, interest and penalties could be sustained.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the spent solvents had already been used in manufacture and, after further purification, were only recovered material that had lost value and was not a new product. Applying settled principles that manufacture requires emergence of a product with a distinct name, use and character, the Tribunal held that mere purification or concentration of an already used chemical does not amount to manufacture. It further noted that the burden to prove manufacture lay on the Revenue, which had not produced fresh evidence to show that the recovered material was dutiable as a new excisable product. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted the view that the duty demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable.
Conclusion: The recovered spent solvents and waste methanol were not excisable goods and the Revenue appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Recovery or purification of spent material does not amount to manufacture unless it results in a new product with a distinct name, use and character, and the burden to prove manufacture rests on the Revenue.