Classification dispute turns on incomplete record, marketability evidence, and retrospective filing of a fresh classification list.

The classification and demand orders were found unsustainable because the record was incomplete on the basis of the classification list, the treatment of earlier approval, and the propriety of filing a fresh classification list with retrospective effect. The majority also required closer scrutiny of marketability evidence, expert opinions, and the unresolved procedural and jurisdictional issues, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration and the impugned orders were set aside. The dissent held that recovered DMT in molten form was not shown to be marketable, that the Department had not discharged the burden of proving excisability, and would have allowed the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned classification and demand orders could be sustained on the existing record, and whether the matter required remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The majority found that the record was incomplete on material aspects, including the basis for the classification list, the manner in which the earlier approval was dealt with, and the legal propriety of filing a fresh classification list with retrospective effect. It was also held that the evidence placed on marketability and the expert opinions required closer scrutiny, and that the authorities below had not considered the relevant procedural and jurisdictional questions. On that basis, the impugned orders were held unsustainable at that stage and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for reconsideration and the impugned orders were set aside.

Dissenting Opinion: The Member (Judicial) held that recovered DMT in molten form was not shown to be marketable, that the Department had not discharged the burden of proving excisability, and therefore allowed the appeal on merits.

---