Proportionate money credit and product characterisation under Rule 57M for Solvent 75 remain referable in dispute.

Eligibility to money credit on Ethyl Alcohol in relation to Solvent 75 turned on whether the credit could be allowed proportionately for the product emerging in manufacture, even if not separately named in the notification. The reference was also treated as proper on the question whether Solvent 75 should be characterised as a regular final product or as waste or a by-product for Rule 57M. The text notes that Solvent 75 required separate consideration because its composition was indeterminate and the applicability of the rule remained disputed. The reference application succeeded only to the extent of Solvent 75 and not for the other product discussed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether money credit on Ethyl Alcohol was admissible on a proportionate basis in relation to Solvent 75. (ii) Whether Solvent 75 was to be treated as a regular final product or as a waste or by-product for the purpose of Rule 57M.

Issue (i): Whether money credit on Ethyl Alcohol was admissible on a proportionate basis in relation to Solvent 75.

Analysis: The application proceeded on the footing that Solvent 75 emerged in the course of manufacture and that credit attributable to the quantity used in relation to that product should not be denied merely because it was not separately named in the notification. The order noted the earlier reference in a similar matter and treated the question as fit for reference in so far as Solvent 75 was concerned.

Conclusion: The question concerning proportionate money credit attributable to Solvent 75 was allowed to be referred.

Issue (ii): Whether Solvent 75 was to be treated as a regular final product or as a waste or by-product for the purpose of Rule 57M.

Analysis: The order recorded that the benefit claimed depended on whether Solvent 75 could be characterised as waste or by-product so as to attract Rule 57M. It distinguished the earlier treatment of Paraldehyde and accepted that Solvent 75 required separate consideration on the basis that its composition was indeterminate and the applicability of the rule was in issue.

Conclusion: The question whether Solvent 75 was a regular final product or a waste or by-product was allowed to be referred.

Final Conclusion: The reference application succeeded only to the extent of Solvent 75, and the matter was not accepted in relation to the other product discussed in the application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eligibility to money credit depends on whether an emerging product is a waste or by-product, the question is referable when its character and the consequent application of the exemption or credit rule remain in dispute.

---