https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45437 Aluminium pieces drilled, punched and riveted were not shown to have emerged as new marketable goods with a distinct name, character or use, so they were not established as excisable articles under Tariff Item 68. The burden to prove manufacture and excisability lay on the Revenue, and it failed to adduce evidence that the processed pieces were goods capable of duty. The contention that they were component parts of standardised windows or doors was also rejected because tailor-made items cannot be treated as component parts on assumption; that conclusion depends on evidence in each case. The departmental challenge therefore failed. en-us Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:23:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45437 Aluminium pieces drilled, punched and riveted were not shown to have emerged as new marketable goods with a distinct name, character or use, so they were not established as excisable articles under Tariff Item 68. The burden to prove manufacture and excisability lay on the Revenue, and it failed to adduce evidence that the processed pieces were goods capable of duty. The contention that they were component parts of standardised windows or doors was also rejected because tailor-made items cannot be treated as component parts on assumption; that conclusion depends on evidence in each case. The departmental challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45437