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 EPDM rubber tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber was dutiable excisable goods under the relevant tariff entry in the absence of evidence that it was marketable or capable of being marketed, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The majority proceeded on the basis that mere captive consumption does not by itself establish that a product is not marketable, and that marketability remains an essential ingredient for excisability. At the same time, it was found that the record did not contain adequate evidence of actual marketability or any market enquiry by the Department. The material also showed that the product had been described as tubing falling within the tariff description, but the question whether it was in fact marketable had not been properly established on the existing record. In these circumstances, the Collector's order dropping the demand could not stand without a fuller examination of the marketability issue and the relevant factual material.
Conclusion: The product was not finally held liable to duty on the existing record, and the matter was required to be reconsidered de novo.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the Collector's order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication on marketability and excisability.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise liability, a product must be shown to be marketable or capable of being marketed, and where the existing record does not adequately establish that fact, fresh consideration is required.