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 intermediate yeast mixture obtained by propagating purchased yeast with molasses and water was excisable under Heading 21.02, and whether the Revenue had proved that the product was marketable.
Analysis: The product in question was not the mere yeast referred to in Heading 21.02, but an intermediate liquid mixture used in the manufacture of potable alcohol. The Tribunal's finding that the process undertaken by the assessee did not amount to manufacture of a marketable product was supported by the record. Even where a product is specified in the tariff, duty does not arise unless the Department establishes that the goods are marketable or capable of being marketed. The burden to prove marketability lay on the Department, and that burden was not discharged.
Conclusion: The intermediate product was not shown to be marketable and was therefore not liable to central excise duty; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected, and the departmental demand could not be sustained for want of proof of marketability of the alleged excisable product.
Ratio Decidendi: A tariff entry by itself does not attract excise duty unless the goods produced are shown to be marketable, and the burden of proving marketability rests on the Department.