https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283162 The dispute concerned whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock was the same commodity as Residual Fuel Oil, whether it was excisable and marketable, and whether exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE could apply. The CESTAT held that the foundational questions of actual manufacture, marketability, and excisability had not been finally determined, and that the Revenue had to discharge the burden of proving marketability. Exemption could be examined only after the product was first found to be the same commodity and dutiable, including in the context of use in power generation and partial sale to TNEB. The matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication on these issues. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:38:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283162 The dispute concerned whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock was the same commodity as Residual Fuel Oil, whether it was excisable and marketable, and whether exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE could apply. The CESTAT held that the foundational questions of actual manufacture, marketability, and excisability had not been finally determined, and that the Revenue had to discharge the burden of proving marketability. Exemption could be examined only after the product was first found to be the same commodity and dutiable, including in the context of use in power generation and partial sale to TNEB. The matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication on these issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283162