2013 (12) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar (main product) and molasses (by-product), in which process press-mud emerges as a waste, which is sold for a price. Press-mud does not figure in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Nevertheless, the Department issued a show-cause notice to the appellant demanding 10%/5% of the value of press-mud under Rule 6(3) o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubstance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. The learned Superintendent (AR) submits that the appellant admittedly sold press-mud for a consideration and hence the material should be deemed to be marketable. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that marketability is not the only criterion for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arguments based on the aforesaid explanation to the definition of excisable goods are inconsequential. In the result, press-mud cannot be considered to be an 'exempted excisable goods.' It is also pertinent to note that this commodity does not figure anywhere in the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. For these reasons, Rule 6(3) is not attracted and consequentially the impugned demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X