TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the product described as sizing mix was shown to be a marketable excisable product liable to duty under Chapter 38.09; (ii) whether, in any event, the product was covered by Notification No. 18/89 dated 6-4-1989 and hence not dutiable for the period in question.
Issue (i): Whether the product described as sizing mix was shown to be a marketable excisable product liable to duty under Chapter 38.09.
Analysis: The department relied on the nature of the preparation and the fact that it was captively consumed to contend that a distinct manufactured product came into existence. The counter-version was that the material was only a freshly prepared sizing mixture, not a separately marketable sizing agent, and that no evidence had been produced to establish marketability. The absence of proof that the product was available in the market was treated as material.
Conclusion: The product was not proved to be a marketable excisable product, and the demand failed on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether, in any event, the product was covered by Notification No. 18/89 dated 6-4-1989 and hence not dutiable for the period in question.
Analysis: Even assuming the product to be excisable, the record showed that Notification No. 18/89 covered the relevant period. On that footing, no duty could be demanded for the period under appeal. The exemption was treated as independently sufficient to defeat the demand.
Conclusion: The product was exempt for the relevant period under Notification No. 18/89, so no duty was payable.
Final Conclusion: The department failed both on excisability and on exemption, and the order relieving the assessee from duty was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand on a captive intermediate product cannot succeed unless marketability is established, and in any event an applicable exemption notification bars the levy for the covered period.
TaxTMI 
