TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether excise duty is attracted only if the manufactured goods are sold or are marketable, and defective articles returned unsold cease to be goods for levy purposes. (ii) Whether destruction of returned goods is covered by Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to permit refund of duty.
Issue (i): Whether excise duty is attracted only if the manufactured goods are sold or are marketable, and defective articles returned unsold cease to be goods for levy purposes.
Analysis: Excise duty is a tax on manufacture or production, and the taxable event is complete when excisable goods are manufactured. Sale or actual marketability after clearance is not the determining factor for levy. Goods do not lose their character as excisable goods merely because they are defective, unsold, or later become unusable.
Conclusion: The view that defective articles incapable of sale are not goods and therefore not liable to excise duty was rejected and held to be incorrect in law, in favour of Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether destruction of returned goods is covered by Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to permit refund of duty.
Analysis: Rule 173-L permits refund only where goods cleared for home consumption are returned to the factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned, or subjected to some similar process. Its conditions and exceptions show that the rule is confined to returned goods intended for reprocessing and does not extend to goods returned for destruction. No corresponding refund provision was shown for post-clearance destruction of goods.
Conclusion: Destruction of goods is not covered by Rule 173-L, and refund on that basis was not admissible, in favour of Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order granting refund was set aside and the original rejection of the refund claim was restored. The Revenue succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty is attracted by manufacture of excisable goods, not by their sale, and refund under Rule 173-L is confined to returned goods sent back for reprocessing and does not extend to goods returned for destruction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
