https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109715 Invisible burning loss in job work was treated as a non-physical process loss, not as identifiable waste capable of return, duty-paid clearance, or supervised destruction. A Board circular specifically allowing such loss was held binding on departmental authorities, so the levy could not be sustained on inputs lost in processing merely because no physical waste remained. The record did not conclusively establish the objection that the inputs were too pure for burning loss, and that point had not been examined earlier. The operative effect was that duty was not payable on the input element lost as invisible process loss, and the demand was unsustainable to that extent. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:06:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109715 Invisible burning loss in job work was treated as a non-physical process loss, not as identifiable waste capable of return, duty-paid clearance, or supervised destruction. A Board circular specifically allowing such loss was held binding on departmental authorities, so the levy could not be sustained on inputs lost in processing merely because no physical waste remained. The record did not conclusively establish the objection that the inputs were too pure for burning loss, and that point had not been examined earlier. The operative effect was that duty was not payable on the input element lost as invisible process loss, and the demand was unsustainable to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109715