TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order confirming excise duty and penalty was vitiated for failure to consider the assessee's submissions on marketability, captive consumption, limitation, and departmental knowledge, warranting remand for de novo adjudication.
Analysis: The dispute concerned whether the resin mixtures used exclusively within the factory for manufacture of GRP products were excisable goods in the absence of marketability, and whether the extended period under the limitation provision could be invoked on the basis of suppression. The adjudicating authority relied on the position that manufacture, not sale, was the taxable event, but did not deal with the assessee's detailed case that the products were unstable, not marketable, and known to the department from earlier proceedings and audits. The order also did not give a reasoned finding on the challenge to invocation of the extended period.
Conclusion: The order was held to be non-speaking and suffering from non-application of mind, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only for the purpose of setting aside the impugned order and obtaining a fresh decision on merits and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order that fails to consider material submissions on marketability and limitation is liable to be set aside as a non-speaking order and remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
