https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89987 In excise classification disputes, the department must prove that the goods satisfy the essential ingredients of the tariff entry before duty can be levied. Glazing material was not shown with sufficient clarity to be vitrifiable enamel or glaze falling under Heading 32.07, so classification under that heading failed. The goods were also not proved to be marketable, as the Revenue produced no evidence of marketability or sale of similar goods, so dutiability on that basis also failed. The result was that excise duty could not be sustained on either ground. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89987 In excise classification disputes, the department must prove that the goods satisfy the essential ingredients of the tariff entry before duty can be levied. Glazing material was not shown with sufficient clarity to be vitrifiable enamel or glaze falling under Heading 32.07, so classification under that heading failed. The goods were also not proved to be marketable, as the Revenue produced no evidence of marketability or sale of similar goods, so dutiability on that basis also failed. The result was that excise duty could not be sustained on either ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89987