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

..... 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 process had been drained out into the nearby canals and that they are not liable to duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 held that the removal of effluent cannot be treated as removal of input. It cannot be treated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ving 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 such effluent drained into the canal was having marketability. We are also in agreement with the view take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X