Just a moment...
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 the dispute required remand for fresh adjudication on the foundational questions whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock was the same as Residual Fuel Oil, whether the product was excisable and marketable, and whether exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was available.
Analysis: The controversy arose from the show cause notice itself and the core questions were not finally determined by the authorities below. The proper enquiry was whether the product was actually manufactured, whether it satisfied the twin requirements of manufacture and marketability, and whether the Revenue had discharged the burden of proving marketability. Only if the product was found to be the same commodity and dutiable could the question of exemption arise under the notification when used in power generation partly sold to TNEB. The earlier precedent on Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was treated as fact-specific, while the issue of excisability had to be examined independently on the basis of the Board of Trustees, Hindustan Petroleum, and Hindustan Zinc principles.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh, reasoned adjudication on the foundational issues, and the Revenue appeal was disposed of accordingly.