TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court remits excise duty classification case back to Tribunal, emphasizing marketability of C.I. castings</h1> The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order in a case concerning the classification of products for excise duty, specifically focusing on the ... SCN issued alleging that the assessee first manufactures C.I.castings which are later on captively consumed for producing the C.I.Chilled Rolls; that since the assessee was producing intermediary product, it was liable to pay the excise duty on the C.I.castings u/ch 7207.10 - Tribunal has not recorded any finding regarding marketability of the intermediary product i.e. C.I.castings – hence excise duty could not be levied on the intermediary product i.e. C.I.castings Issues:Classification of products for excise duty - Marketability of intermediary product C.I. castings.Analysis:The case involved the classification of products for excise duty, specifically focusing on the marketability of the intermediary product, C.I. castings. The appellant claimed exemption from excise duty for C.I. Chilled Rolls under chapter heading 84.37. However, a show cause notice alleged that excise duty was payable on C.I. castings under chapter heading 7207.10, as they were used as intermediary products. The appellant argued that since C.I. castings were not marketable and were in the process of manufacturing C.I. Chilled Rolls, excise duty could not be levied on them.The adjudicating authority found that marketability of castings did not impact product classification, as castings manufactured by the appellant were capable of being sold in the market. The appellate authority supported this finding, noting that even if castings were sold to specific customers and not in the open market, they still satisfied marketability criteria. However, the Tribunal did not address the issue of marketability in its decision.The appellant's counsel contended that unless the intermediary product (C.I. castings) was marketable, excise duty could not be imposed, citing relevant case law. As the Tribunal did not provide a finding on marketability, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to address the marketability of C.I. castings in accordance with the law. All contentions were left open for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
