Marketability requirement controls excisability of an unstable intermediate product used in acrylic sheet manufacture.

Pre-polymer syrup of methyl methacrylate monomer used as an intermediate in acrylic sheet manufacture was treated as non-excisable because marketability was not proved. The Tribunal held that the Revenue bore the burden of showing that the product could be bought and sold, and the departmental remand had specifically required proof of marketability. Technical reports showed the product was an unstable reaction intermediate, not fully polymerised, and preservable only for a short time under special conditions. Certificates also indicated that it had no commercial identity in the market. The ruling reaffirmed that inclusion in the tariff schedule does not dispense with the requirement of marketability, and the department failed to discharge its burden.

---

---

Issues: Whether pre-polymer syrup of methyl methacrylate monomer, arising as an intermediate product in the manufacture of acrylic sheets, was excisable and marketable so as to attract duty under tariff sub-heading 3906.10.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the departmental remand had specifically required proof of marketability and that the burden lay on the Revenue. The technical reports obtained from the Department of Chemistry, Sardar Patel University, and the Assistant Chemical Examiner consistently showed that the product was an unstable intermediate stage of reaction, not fully polymerised, and capable of preservation only for a short period under special conditions. The assessee also produced certificates indicating that the product had no commercial identity in the market. The earlier adjudication had already recorded that the product was neither marketed nor marketable, and that finding had attained finality. Applying the principle that even a tariff entry does not dispense with the requirement of marketability, the Tribunal held that mere inclusion in the tariff schedule was insufficient where the product was not shown to be capable of being bought and sold.

Conclusion: The product was not shown to be marketable or excisable, and the department failed to discharge the burden of proof; the assessee's stand was accepted.

---