Manufacture and marketability of injector assemblies required fresh determination; prior tariff ruling was inapplicable, so remand followed.

Manufacture, classification, marketability, and exemption concerning the assembly of nozzles and nozzle holders into injectors had not been properly determined, so the existing order could not stand. The Court noted that the authorities had not examined the factual basis for how an injector was constituted or whether coupling the parts amounted to manufacture, and that the department bore the burden of proving manufacture and marketability. The earlier Tribunal ruling on nozzles fitted into holders under the old tariff was held inapplicable because the present dispute arose under the 1985 Tariff Act, Chapter 84, and Section XVI. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order could be sustained when the questions of manufacture, classification, marketability, and exemption relating to the assembly of nozzles and nozzle holders into injectors had not been properly determined, and whether the matter required remand for de novo adjudication.

Analysis: The department's case was that nozzles and nozzle holders were intermediate products which, on coupling, resulted in a distinct and saleable product, namely an injector. The factual foundation for deciding how an injector was constituted, what its components were, and whether the process amounted to manufacture had not been examined by the authorities below. The earlier Tribunal decision concerning fitment of nozzles into holders under the old tariff was held inapplicable because the controversy there did not involve the present question of manufacture of injectors under the 1985 Tariff Act, nor the relevant Chapter 84 and Section XVI scheme. The Court also noted that the burden of proving manufacture and marketability lay on the department, while the assessee's claim to exemption could arise only after the manufacturing issue was first decided, with the amended notifications and the relevant tariff provisions duly considered.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination of the show cause notices.

---