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 sludge or waste emerging in the course of manufacture of the principal product amounts to manufacture and is liable to excise duty. (ii) Whether the amendment to marketability under the excise law could fasten duty liability for a period prior to its insertion.
Issue (i): Whether sludge or waste emerging in the course of manufacture of the principal product amounts to manufacture and is liable to excise duty.
Analysis: The governing test is whether the by-product or waste is itself the result of a process of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A residual or agricultural waste which emerges only incidentally in the course of producing the principal goods, and for which no specific process is shown in the tariff notes so as to attract the deeming fiction of manufacture, does not satisfy that requirement. The fact that such waste may find mention in the tariff or may be capable of sale does not by itself establish manufacture.
Conclusion: The sludge or waste was not held to be excisable on the footing of manufacture, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to marketability under the excise law could fasten duty liability for a period prior to its insertion.
Analysis: The amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a later change in the law and not as one operating backwards. In fiscal statutes, liability cannot be imposed by extending an amended charging concept to a prior period unless the legislation clearly so provides. The court applied strict construction to the charging provision and declined to enlarge the liability by reference to the later amendment.
Conclusion: The amendment did not apply retrospectively to the dispute period, and this issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the waste generated in manufacture was not treated as excisable manufacture on the facts, and the later marketability amendment could not be used to impose duty for the earlier period.
Ratio Decidendi: Waste or residue arising incidentally in the course of manufacture is not excisable unless it is itself brought within manufacture by the statute or tariff notes, and a later marketability amendment does not create retrospective duty liability without clear legislative intent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
