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 rubberised cotton fabrics emerging as an intermediate product in the manufacture of canvas shoes were marketable goods liable to central excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Duty under the Central Excise Act attaches only to goods that are capable of being bought and sold in the market. An intermediate product used wholly within the factory is not automatically dutiable merely because it is classifiable under the tariff. The decisive question is marketability, and the burden to establish that the product is a marketable commodity rests on the Revenue. On the evidence, no market enquiry, specification, testing, or expert material was produced to show that the rubberised cotton fabrics were known in the market as a distinct commodity or were capable of sale as such. Mere reliance on cited decisions did not discharge that burden.
Conclusion: The rubberised cotton fabrics were not shown to be marketable goods and were, therefore, not liable to excise duty; the Revenue's appeal fails.
Final Conclusion: The order setting aside the duty demand was sustained, and the Revenue challenge was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Intermediate products used in captive consumption are excisable only if the Revenue proves that they are marketable as distinct commodities capable of being bought and sold in the market.