Just a moment...
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%
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 impugned goods, namely refinery gas and long residue arising in the refining process, were marketable and therefore liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: For goods to attract duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they must be excisable, manufactured and marketable. The impugned goods were not in dispute as to classification or manufacture; the decisive question was marketability. The burden to establish marketability lay on the Revenue. The show cause notices did not assert or substantiate marketability, and the later website material relied upon by the Revenue was held insufficient because it did not prove that the goods were marketable at the relevant time. Mere usability or theoretical capability of use was held not to be the same as marketability. The contemporaneous material did not show that the goods were known to the market as commodities capable of being bought and sold.
Conclusion: The impugned goods were not proved to be marketable, and therefore no excise duty was leviable on them; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: To levy excise duty, the Revenue must prove that the goods are marketable at the relevant time, and mere possible use or later technological references do not establish marketability.