Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the underframe and covered type container arising during wagon fabrication were marketable excisable goods liable to central excise duty as identifiable parts of wagons.
Analysis: Excise duty is attracted only when the product is manufactured and is also marketable, meaning capable of being bought or sold in the market or known in the market as a distinct identifiable commodity. Mere inclusion in the tariff is not enough. The Revenue had to establish marketability, but produced no evidence that the underframe was marketable or that the alleged covered type container ever came into existence as a separate goods. The valuation adopted was also found to be wholly unrealistic, and the opinion of the Railway Ministry supported the view that the impugned goods were not marketable.
Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be marketable identifiable wagon parts and were not liable to excise duty.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed on the ground that marketability, a condition precedent for excisability, was not established.
Ratio Decidendi: For central excise, a product is dutiable only if it is both manufactured and marketable as a distinct identifiable commodity, and the burden to prove marketability lies on the Revenue.