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 rubberised cotton fabric or friction cloth, being an intermediary product captively consumed in the manufacture of rubber beltings and not sold in the market, constituted goods exigible to excise duty and whether the amended Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted duty liability.
Analysis: The levy under the charging provision applies only to excisable goods, and the concept of goods requires an article that ordinarily comes to the market to be bought and sold. The product in question emerged only as a stage in the manufacturing process, was admittedly not sold by the petitioners, and was consumed captively for further manufacture. On that footing, it did not satisfy the marketability requirement and could not be treated as goods within the charging provision. The amendments to Rules 9 and 49 did not alter this position because those rules only operate where the intermediary article independently falls within the excisable entry in the First Schedule.
Conclusion: The notices demanding duty on rubberised cotton fabric were unsustainable, and the levy could not be imposed on that intermediary product. The finding is in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned show-cause notices were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: An intermediary product captively consumed in manufacture is not excisable unless it is marketable and independently falls within the charging entry for excise duty.