COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA versus UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA versus UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD.

Intermediate products are not subject to excise duty unless they are capable of being marketed; mere mention in dictionary, excise tariff, or Duty Drawback Rules does not suffice without proof of marketability. The department failed to show the products could be independently marketed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Collector of Central Excise, Baroda; Respondent: United Phosphorus Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appeal After Tribunal Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Marketability of Goods, Intermediate Products
Taxation Law Excise Duty Marketability of Goods Intermediate Products

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collector of Central Excise, Baroda

Appellant

United Phosphorus Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appeal After Tribunal Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intermediate products arising in a multi-stage integrated chemical process are liable to excise duty if not marketable

Ratio Decidendi

Intermediate products are not subject to excise duty unless they are capable of being marketed; mere mention in dictionary, excise tariff, or Duty Drawback Rules does not suffice without proof of marketability. The department failed to show the products could be independently marketed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.