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 treated water cleared to vending machine outlets was marketable and liable to central excise duty under the deeming provision in Chapter 22, and whether duty, interest and penalties were sustainable.
Analysis: The decisive test was marketability. The department did not establish by enquiry or evidence that the treated water was sold to consumers or otherwise marketed as a distinct commodity. The processes of purification and filtration only improved the quality of water and did not change its nature or composition. The deeming provision in Note 2 to Chapter 22 applied only where the specified processes rendered the product marketable to the consumer, and that condition was not satisfied on the facts. The reference to canisters bearing the name "cococola" did not alter the position, as the mark was treated as a house mark used for identification and the water itself was not marketed under that brand. Since the duty demand failed, the consequential penalties also could not survive.
Conclusion: The treated water was not exigible to central excise duty, and the demand and penalties were unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A deeming provision treating a process as manufacture applies only when the department proves that the processed goods have become marketable to the consumer as a distinct commodity; mere purification that leaves the product as water does not satisfy that test.