2004 (2) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri M. Rajendra, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. -  This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner dated  5-5-1992. Dispute relates to the issue whether the Commissioner was justified in accepting the plea of the appellant that a certain portion of effluents forming during the manufacturing p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Commissioner took the view that the department has not proved that the assessee has not as a matter of fact drained out such effluent to the canal as it claimed but, on the other hand, effected sale of the same for a price. He also took the view that the department has failed to prove that such effluent which had been drained out into the canal had marketability. The Commissioner further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rate the effluent which is alleged to have been drained out into the canal has to be treated as having marketability and therefore, liable to duty. 4. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant. No material had been placed before the Commissioner or before us in support of the Revenue's contention that there was clandestine removal. There is also no evidence that s....