Tribunal corrects tariff heading for rubberized fabric, upholds decision on marketability.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of rubberized tyre cord fabric, correcting the tariff heading from 59.02 to 59.06. On the issue of marketability for excise duty, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of both rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound. The judgment emphasized the necessity of evidence and precedent in establishing marketability for excise duty purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under the correct tariff heading.
2. Determination of marketability of rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound for excise duty.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Goods:
The appeal addressed the classification of rubberized tyre cord fabric under the correct tariff heading, which was erroneously done under Chapter Heading No. 59.02 instead of 59.06. The Tribunal noted that the demand confirmed under the wrong classification was not sustainable, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in a similar matter. The appeal was dismissed based on this issue.

2. Marketability of Goods:
The main issue revolved around the marketability of rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound for excise duty. The Revenue contended that both products were marketable based on their identification in the market, even if not directly sold by the manufacturer. However, the respondent argued that the burden of proof lay with the Revenue to establish marketability, which they failed to do. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Revenue to support the marketability claim. Additionally, the respondent highlighted the short self-life of the rubber tread compound, making it unsuitable for sale to other manufacturers. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of evidence and the nature of the goods led to the conclusion that they were not marketable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, stating that the Revenue did not discharge the burden of proof regarding marketability. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and precedent in determining the marketability of goods for excise duty purposes.

---