https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84425 Mere inclusion of an intermediate product in the tariff schedule does not by itself establish excisability unless marketability is proved on evidence. The record contained expert opinions and dealer letters relevant to marketability and shelf life, but the adjudicating order did not properly examine that material or meet the assessee's evidence. The limitation plea was also not considered in sufficient depth. The order was therefore found infirm for non-application of mind, and the demand and penalty were set aside with the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after fresh consideration of the evidence and limitation issue. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:21:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84425 Mere inclusion of an intermediate product in the tariff schedule does not by itself establish excisability unless marketability is proved on evidence. The record contained expert opinions and dealer letters relevant to marketability and shelf life, but the adjudicating order did not properly examine that material or meet the assessee's evidence. The limitation plea was also not considered in sufficient depth. The order was therefore found infirm for non-application of mind, and the demand and penalty were set aside with the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after fresh consideration of the evidence and limitation issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84425