News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
Fly ash is not manufactured item falling within ambit of Sec 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Department's Writ Appeal dismissed : HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, FEB 06, 2017: REVENUE is in appeal against the order of the High Court reported in - 2015-TIOL-1948-HC-MAD-CX. The Single Judge while disposing the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, held that Fly Ash cannot be treated as manufactured item and set aside the demand. It was further held that the assessee would be entitled to exemption under Notification No 89/95 CE as fly ash is waste arising in the course of generation of electricity. The department is in appeal against the said order on the ground that the Single Judge erred in setting aside demand, as from 1.3.2011, 'fly ash', which is produced pursuant to the burning of coal for the purpose of production and generation of electricity, has been made an excisable goods subject to certain conditions.

After hearing rival contentions, the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal by holding that:

+ From a reading of the statutory provision, it is unambiguously clear that for a commodity to be levied with duty, the same must be produced or manufactured in India and that the raw material should have gone through the process of transformation into a new product. Further, it is also clear that the product, which is to be levied with duty, should have gone through a process of manufacture from the raw materials, which were used in the manufacture of the said product. Further the particular product should be capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable.

+ In the case on hand, there is no quarrel that the product 'fly ash' falls within the definition of 'excisable goods' under Section 2 (d) of the Act. In that, the product 'fly ash' is capable of being bought and sold. The said issue is not in dispute, as the 'fly ash' is utilised in the production of cement, asbestos, fly ash bricks, etc. and, therefore, its capability of being bought and sold is unquestionable. So there is no quarrel that the product 'fly ash' is a marketable product.

+ As propounded by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the twin tests of manufacture and marketability should be satisfied in order to bring the goods within the ambit of excise duty and failure of even one of the test would render the product not liable for excise duty. In the case on hand, it is clear from the averments of either party and is also not in dispute that 'fly ash' is a by-product during the production of electricity and is not the main manufactured item. Further, the 'fly ash' is not a commodity which can be used as such in the market, but it is usable only as one of the materials in the production of other products. Therefore, there being no manufacture of 'fly ash', but 'fly ash' gets formed as a by-product during the production of electricity, merely because the goods 'fly ash' finds a place in the specific or residuary entry in the schedule it cannot be termed as an excisable commodity, since it satisfies the test of marketability. The twin tests have to be satisfied in order to bring a product within the ambit of excise duty and satisfaction of solitary test alone would not be sufficient to levy excise duty on the commodity. Therefore, mere marketability of the product alone would not be suffice to levy duty on the 'fly ash', there being no manufacturing process involved.

+ It is not in dispute that 'fly ash', a by-product during the production of electricity, which is an exempted excisable commodity, is being sold in the market and that it is used for the purpose of production of asbestos, cement, fly ash bricks, etc. The product is capable of being bought and sold, whereby marketability of the product is such that it has a value in the market. Once a product is said to have a value in the market to enable it to be sold for the purpose of manufacture of various commodities, it cannot be termed as 'waste' or 'scrap'. Such being the case, learned single Judge has misled himself into giving a finding that the by-product 'fly ash', which is generated during the production of electricity is a 'waste' or 'scrap' and, thereby, Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.5.95 would stand attracted. The said finding of the single Judge is per se erroneous and is liable to be interfered with.

+ Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, while the finding of the learned single Judge with regard to the applicability of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.5.95 to the case of the respondent herein is liable to be interfered with, however, insofar as the finding of the learned single Judge that the by-product 'fly ash', which is formed during the production of electricity is not a product produced or manufactured falling within the ambit of Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, though the same is marketable, is liable to be sustained. Accordingly, while the primary issue is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellants, the incidental issue is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.

(See 2017-TIOL-237-HC-MAD-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.