https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89879 The Tribunal held that the appellants failed to prove the non-marketability of the glass fiber rovings used captively, as they acknowledged their marketability. The burden was on the appellants to demonstrate the unique characteristics of their rovings affecting marketability, which they did not sufficiently establish. Therefore, the Tribunal sided with the revenue, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that mere distinctions in rovings recognized by the Assistant Commissioner do not negate the marketability of the captively used rovings. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89879 The Tribunal held that the appellants failed to prove the non-marketability of the glass fiber rovings used captively, as they acknowledged their marketability. The burden was on the appellants to demonstrate the unique characteristics of their rovings affecting marketability, which they did not sufficiently establish. Therefore, the Tribunal sided with the revenue, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that mere distinctions in rovings recognized by the Assistant Commissioner do not negate the marketability of the captively used rovings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89879