TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the intermediate product described as flat ceramic pieces, emerging during manufacture of mosaic tiles, was marketable and therefore excisable, and whether duty and interest could be sustained on that basis.
Analysis: The product could not be made liable to duty merely because it was capable of being classified under Chapter 69 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Excise duty arises only if the article is shown to be goods in the commercial sense, namely known in the market or capable of being sold as such. The record did not establish actual removal or sale of the flat ceramic pieces as independent marketable goods, and theoretical or assumed marketability was insufficient. The affidavits from architects and dealers supported the position that the pieces were not separately known as a commercial commodity. The references to manuals and websites did not prove independent marketability or commercial identity of the intermediate pieces.
Conclusion: The flat ceramic pieces were not proved to be marketable excisable goods, so the duty demand and consequential interest could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: An intermediate product is chargeable to excise only when the department proves, on practical evidence, that it has a separate commercial identity and is marketable as goods; theoretical or captive-use based assumptions are insufficient.
TaxTMI 
