Burden of proof in excise marketability disputes: Revenue must prove dutiability, not rely on assumptions about the goods.

In excise classification disputes, the Revenue must prove that the goods are marketable and dutiable under the relevant tariff item. The Court held that the burden was not discharged here: no evidence was led by the Revenue, while the assessee produced affidavit evidence showing the asbestos rings and fabrics were fragile and of limited industrial use. The Tribunal could not rely on its own inspection or suppositions to treat the goods as finished and marketable, nor reject relevant affidavit material without evidence. On the record, there was no material to establish marketability or dutiability, so the demand could not stand and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the asbestos rings and fabrics were marketable excisable goods falling under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff, and whether the Revenue had discharged the burden of proving dutiability.

Analysis: The Revenue bore the onus of establishing that the disputed articles were classifiable as excisable asbestos products. No evidence was led by the Revenue, while the assessee produced affidavit evidence as to the nature, fragility and limited industrial use of the goods. The Tribunal nonetheless concluded, on the basis of its own inspection and suppositions, that the articles were finished, marketable and attractive to a section of the industry. The Court held that the Tribunal could not substitute its own assumptions for evidence, nor could it reject relevant affidavit material by stating that the deponents were not the right persons to speak on the products. On the record, there was no material to show marketability or dutiability.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were dutiable under Item 22F, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the appeal was allowed without remand, leaving no basis for the demand to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise classification and marketability disputes, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove dutiability, and the Tribunal cannot replace evidence with its own suppositions or personal assessment of the goods.

---