https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84036 The tribunal held that the burden of proving marketability and dutiability of adhesives lies with the revenue, not the assessee. It emphasized that simply being listed in the tariff schedule does not automatically make a product dutiable unless its marketability is established. The tribunal found that the department failed to provide evidence of the adhesives' marketability, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Vice President acknowledged a violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of the Chemical Examiner's report and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Ultimately, the department's case was deemed unsubstantiated, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:27:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84036 The tribunal held that the burden of proving marketability and dutiability of adhesives lies with the revenue, not the assessee. It emphasized that simply being listed in the tariff schedule does not automatically make a product dutiable unless its marketability is established. The tribunal found that the department failed to provide evidence of the adhesives' marketability, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Vice President acknowledged a violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of the Chemical Examiner's report and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Ultimately, the department's case was deemed unsubstantiated, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84036