Marketability of compounded rubber upheld as excisable; remand rejected where the record was sufficient for decision.

Compounded rubber manufactured during the exemption gap was held to be marketable and therefore excisable because it was capable of being marketed and transported, had utility beyond the immediate manufacturing process, and was covered by exemption notifications before and after the relevant period. The assessee's own claim to exemption under those notifications supported the treatment of the product as excisable. The request for remand was rejected because the record was sufficient to decide the issue and the earlier remand in another matter did not require every disputed factual question to be sent back for fresh consideration. The duty demand for the relevant period was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether compounded rubber manufactured during the interregnum when the exemption notification was not in force was a marketable and therefore excisable product, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Marketability is an essential attribute of excisable goods, but the Tribunal found that the compounded rubber was capable of being marketed and transported, had utility beyond the immediate manufacturing process, and was covered by prior and subsequent exemption notifications. The assessee's own conduct in claiming exemption under the relevant notifications showed that the product was being treated as excisable. The earlier remand order in a different matter did not lay down any rule that every disputed factual issue must be remanded, particularly where the issue was already settled by precedent and the record was sufficient to decide the question.

Conclusion: The compounded rubber was marketable and excisable, the plea for remand was rejected, and the duty demand for the relevant period was upheld.

---