https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92436 Marketability remained the decisive requirement for excisability: the product, described as a preparation of maltose and dextrose, was treated as hydrolysed starch from tapioca or maize starch, and that factual position was not rebutted. The departmental reliance on tariff classification, test reports and alleged sales did not establish marketability, especially because the asserted instability of the product and the distinction between solution form and powder form were left unanswered. Applying the settled principle and the earlier Wockhardt Ltd. decision on non-marketable maltodextrin solution, the product was treated as non-marketable and therefore not excisable, with the assessee's classification challenge succeeding. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92436 Marketability remained the decisive requirement for excisability: the product, described as a preparation of maltose and dextrose, was treated as hydrolysed starch from tapioca or maize starch, and that factual position was not rebutted. The departmental reliance on tariff classification, test reports and alleged sales did not establish marketability, especially because the asserted instability of the product and the distinction between solution form and powder form were left unanswered. Applying the settled principle and the earlier Wockhardt Ltd. decision on non-marketable maltodextrin solution, the product was treated as non-marketable and therefore not excisable, with the assessee's classification challenge succeeding. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92436