Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2006 (9) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Heading 37.07 of the CETA Schedule attracting duty @ 18% ad valorem and captively using such preparations for processing cinematographic films (final product). It also appeared to the department that the respondents were manufacturing 'spent hypo-solutions' classifiable under sub-heading 3823.00/3824.90 attracting duty @ 18% ad valorem and captively using the same in the manufacture of raw silver (Chapter 71 of the CETA Schedule) which was cleared at nil rate of duty. As the final products viz. processed cinematographic films and raw silver were exempt from payment of duty, the department wanted to levy duty of excise on the chemical preparations and the spent hypo-solutions. Hence a show cause notice dated 31-8-1998 was issued by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 182/2002 filed by the Department is against the appellate Commissioner's order. 3.We find that the order passed by learned Commissioner in adjudication of show cause notice dated 31-8-1998 is eminently reasoned and does not call for interference. In the case of Famous Cine Laboratory (supra) relied on by the Commissioner, hypo-solution was found to be ephemeral in nature and hence held to be not marketable, in the absence of evidence of marketability. In the present case also, we have not found any evidence of marketability of the chemical preparations made by the respondents and captively used in the processing of cinematographic films. These preparations had a shelf-life ranging from 2 to 8 weeks as stated by the appellant. But it....