Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 compounded rubber falling under Heading 40.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule was marketable and therefore excisable during the disputed period.
Analysis: The product was admittedly compounded rubber covered by the relevant tariff entry. Chemical test and retest reports found the samples to be compounded rubber and to show no apparent sign of deterioration. The evidence from the laboratory and the oral examination of the Chemical Examiner supported the finding that the product had sufficient shelf life. The plea that the retest was conducted on different samples was rejected, as the record showed that the analysis related to the samples drawn from the factories. The arguments based on trade secrecy, non-sale, and functional unsuitability for other manufacturers were not supported by evidence. The record also showed transportation of the product between units, which reinforced its capability of being bought and sold in the market.
Conclusion: The compounded rubber was marketable and excisable, and the demand of duty was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: For an intermediate product specifically covered by the tariff, excisability depends on marketability, which may be established by evidence of shelf life and capability of being bought and sold, even if the product is captively consumed.