https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167358 Wash oil used as an intermediate product in an integrated refinery process was treated as excisable because it had a distinct commercial identity and was marketable, even though it was not actually sold. At the same time, Rule 143-A was construed broadly to cover the washing activity in the dewaxing unit as part of the further manufacturing process in a declared refinery, so no duty was payable on that use. The demand under Rule 160 failed because the goods were traceable, accounted for, and not shown to have been removed, lost, destroyed, or unaccounted for, and part of the demand was also time-barred. Promissory estoppel could not defeat a statutory excise levy. en-us Sat, 02 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:05:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167358 Wash oil used as an intermediate product in an integrated refinery process was treated as excisable because it had a distinct commercial identity and was marketable, even though it was not actually sold. At the same time, Rule 143-A was construed broadly to cover the washing activity in the dewaxing unit as part of the further manufacturing process in a declared refinery, so no duty was payable on that use. The demand under Rule 160 failed because the goods were traceable, accounted for, and not shown to have been removed, lost, destroyed, or unaccounted for, and part of the demand was also time-barred. Promissory estoppel could not defeat a statutory excise levy. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 02 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167358