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 fly ash generated during the process of electricity generation from lignite was manufactured goods chargeable to central excise duty, and whether Notification No. 2/2011 dated 01.03.2011 could sustain the levy.
Analysis: Excisability requires satisfaction of both manufacture and marketability. Although fly ash had been sold and therefore answered the test of marketability, it arose only as a residue or waste during the burning process for generation of electricity and was not a product manufactured by the appellant. The reasoning in prior decisions on waste/by-products and the principle that a notification cannot create a levy absent statutory authority supported the conclusion that fly ash, in these circumstances, was not excisable. The notification relied upon by the department was therefore inapplicable.
Conclusion: Fly ash was not manufactured goods liable to central excise duty, and the demand based on Notification No. 2/2011 was unsustainable; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the appellate findings confirming it were set aside because the impugned fly ash was treated as a residue generated in the course of electricity generation, not as manufactured excisable goods.
Ratio Decidendi: A product is liable to excise only if it is manufactured and marketable, and a levy cannot be sustained on a residue or waste merely because it is sold or covered by a notification when manufacture is absent.