Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 321 - AT - Central ExciseCompounded rubber – Marketability of a product manufactured in the process of manufacture of another product - The appellant disputed the claim of the Department while contending that preparation of compounded rubber was not manufacturing activity which can be subjected to excise duty, and it was non-marketable. - The decision is in the matter of Ralson (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E, Chandigarh-I wherein, after considering the various contentions and the relevant aspects of the matter as well as the test reports, it was held that a crucial evidence of chemical test report coupled with oral evidence of the Assistant Chemical Examiner and the assessee’s admission of transporation and transportability of the product in question clearly distinguish the same from the rubberised fabric, besides that compounded rubber has much longer shelf life and even can be transported from one unit to another – Hence, the point that the compounded rubber is a marketable and therefore, excisable is well settled - The question of seeking exemption can arise only after the product is admitted to be excisable one and thereupon the assessee can avail the benefit under an exemption notification. The question of exemption from liability of excise duty can arise only in case of excisable goods. In other words, the question of claiming exemption can arise only in the case of excisable goods which are specifically exempted from the duty liability under a notification. – Fact that appellants claimed for exemption proves that they were considering compounded rubber to be excisable product – Demand is sustainable
|