2017 (4) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner, the goods not meeting the twin test - Held that: - the Explanation added to Section 2(d) of CEA, 1944 incorporated w.e.f. 10.05.2008 shall operate from that date without brining Revenue's case into its fold for levy prior to that date. Revenue thereby failed to discharge its burden of proof demonstrating that the Filter Cake came out as a product itself intended to be manufactured and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ure Filter Cake. Therefore emergence of that goods was nothing but waste and residue which are not marketable. Appellant further says that ld. Appellate Commissioner has held that Filter Cake obtained by the appellant is nothing but ETP sludge and that arose out of the affluent plant. Thus the contention of appellant being on two counts i.e. there was no intention to manufacture Filter Cake and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 10.05.2008. Therefore the contention of Revenue even fails on this count also. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. The categorical finding of the ld. Appellate Commissioner is that Filter Cake was sold which emanated from the affluent treatment plant and appellant did not intend to manufacture the same as its product. Therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X