https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221445 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the corrugation gum used in manufacturing exempted products was non-marketable and non-excisable due to the absence of preservatives, making it ineligible for central excise duty. The burden of proving marketability rested with the department, which failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the duty demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the duty demand against the appellant was set aside. The decision highlighted the significance of meeting the burden of proof in excise cases, emphasizing the requirement for concrete evidence to support duty claims. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221445 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the corrugation gum used in manufacturing exempted products was non-marketable and non-excisable due to the absence of preservatives, making it ineligible for central excise duty. The burden of proving marketability rested with the department, which failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the duty demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the duty demand against the appellant was set aside. The decision highlighted the significance of meeting the burden of proof in excise cases, emphasizing the requirement for concrete evidence to support duty claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221445