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 parts of railway wagons manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of railway wagons were liable to central excise duty in the absence of proof that they were marketable or otherwise identifiable as excisable goods.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed the settled position that excise duty on intermediate or captive products can be sustained only if the Revenue establishes that the goods are marketable and known in the market as distinct identifiable commodities. On the facts, the record did not show that the parts such as under-frame and other wagon components had independent marketability. The earlier decision in the same line of dispute had already held that the Department had failed to discharge the burden of proving marketability, and that view had been affirmed in subsequent judicial consideration. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that mere inclusion in the tariff schedule is not enough to attract duty where marketability is not proved.
Conclusion: The wagon parts were not shown to be marketable excisable goods, and the demand of central excise duty was not sustainable. The Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order dropping the duty demand was sustained, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Intermediate or captive goods are chargeable to excise duty only when the Revenue proves that they are marketable and constitute distinct identifiable commodities.