2003 (4) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT

Manufacture - Spent earth - whether a goods becomes excisable merely because it falls within a tariff item - Held that:- In the case of B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1995 (5) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has also been held that merely because there is a change in the Tariff Item the goods does not become excisable. Subsequently in a judgment [2003 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has been held that merely because an item falls in a Tariff Entry, it does not become excisable unless there is manufacture and the goods is marketable. In Lal Woollen & Silk Mills' case (1999 (4) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) it has not been held that the twin test of manufacture and marketability is not to apply. It is not possible to accept the contention that merely because an item falls in a Tariff Entry it must be deemed that there is manufacture. The law still remains that the burden to prove that there is manufacture and that what is manufactured is on the revenue. In this case no new evidence is placed to show that there is manufacture. "Spent earth" was "earth" on which duty has been paid. It remains earth even after the processing. Thus if duty was to be levied on it again, it would amount to levying double duty on the same product - Decided against Revenue.