Marketability test for excise duty fails where revenue cannot prove an intermediate rubber compound is capable of being sold.

An intermediate rubber compound is excisable only if it is capable of being brought to market, and the burden to prove marketability lies on the revenue. The prior Tribunal ruling between the same parties had already found no evidence that the compound was marketable, and the present record again relied only on an alleged 48-hour shelf-life without proof of actual marketability. The compound was therefore not marketable and not liable to central excise duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the intermediate rubber compound was marketable so as to attract central excise duty.

Analysis: The relevant test for excisability is whether the product is capable of being brought to market, and the burden to establish marketability lies on the revenue. The earlier Tribunal decision between the same parties had already held that no evidence was adduced to show that the rubber compound was capable of being marketed. In the present matter also, the only reliance was on the alleged shelf-life of 48 hours, without supporting evidence of marketability.

Conclusion: The rubber compound was held not marketable and not liable to central excise duty.

---