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 product, silver chloride, emerging in the assessee's zinc-manufacturing process was marketable so as to constitute excisable goods liable to duty, and whether it was classifiable under Tariff Heading 28.43.
Analysis: Levy under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires both manufacture and marketability. The product was found to satisfy the manufacture test because it was a chemically defined compound arising at a recoverable stage in the process. However, marketability is a question of fact, and the burden lay on the department to show that the silver chloride actually produced in the factory, in slurry form with lower silver content and purity, was capable of being bought and sold in the market as such. The material on record did not establish proper market enquiry or proof that the factory product was the same as the product available in the market. Mere reference to comparable silver chloride or to valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 did not discharge that burden.
Conclusion: The product was not proved to be marketable, and duty could not be sustained against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise levy, manufacture alone is insufficient; the department must independently prove that the goods are marketable in the form in which they emerge from the assessee's factory.