Marketability and manufacture of unfired bricks depend on repeated sales and proof of a new, distinct commodity.

Repeated sales over the relevant period are strong evidence that unfired bricks are marketable, and marketability is not negated merely because they were sold at low prices or because the kiln was unusable. The question whether mixing raw materials and shaping them into unfired bricks amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) depends on whether the process produces a new commodity with a distinct name, character and use; the materials before the Tribunal did not clearly establish that element, and the burden remained on the department to prove manufacture. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on manufacture and, if necessary, classification and duty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the unfired bricks were marketable and liable to duty; (ii) whether the process of mixing raw materials and shaping them into unfired bricks amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f).

Issue (i): whether the unfired bricks were marketable and liable to duty.

Analysis: The existence of repeated sales over the relevant periods indicated a continuing course of trade in the goods. On that footing, the goods could not be treated as lacking marketability merely because they were sold at low prices or because the kiln was unusable.

Conclusion: The unfired bricks were held to be marketable; the finding of non-marketability was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the process of mixing raw materials and shaping them into unfired bricks amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f).

Analysis: The materials placed before the Tribunal did not clearly establish whether the process resulted in a new commodity having a distinct name, character and use from the raw materials. The question required fuller examination, and the burden lay on the department to show that manufacture had taken place.

Conclusion: The issue of manufacture was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The order of the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on the question of manufacture and, if necessary, classification and duty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated sale of goods over the relevant period is strong evidence of marketability, but duty can be sustained only if the department establishes that the process amounts to manufacture resulting in a new and distinct commodity.

---