Excisable goods classification turns on trade identity and manufacture, not a general open market, for aluminium cans.

Aluminium cans or torch bodies made from aluminium slugs were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process involved extrusion in its broad commercial sense, including impact extrusion, and the articles were also capable of falling within pipes and tubes. The text states that conversion of aluminium slugs into distinct hollow cans amounted to manufacture, and that a special or general open market was not required where the product was recognisable in trade and answered the statutory description of goods. On that basis, the tariff entry and charging provision supported the levy, and the excise duty challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium cans or torch bodies manufactured from aluminium slugs were classifiable as extruded shapes or pipes and tubes under Entry 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether they were excisable goods liable to duty.

Analysis: The process of producing the cans was held to be extrusion in its general sense, including impact extrusion, because aluminium was pushed through a die and the industry understood extrusion broadly. Even if the product were not treated as an extruded shape, the cans were hollow tubular forms and would fall within pipes and tubes. The rate of duty was the same under the relevant sub-entries, so classification under the wrong sub-entry did not matter where power to levy existed. The process of converting aluminium slugs into distinct hollow cans amounted to manufacture. In addition, the Act levied duty on goods produced or manufactured in India, and the statutory meaning of goods included materials and articles described in the tariff. Marketability in the sense of a general open market was not an essential test. A product known and dealt with in a specialised trade, and capable of being supplied as an article, was sufficient to answer the description of goods.

Conclusion: The aluminium cans or torch bodies were excisable goods falling within the tariff entry and were liable to excise duty.

Final Conclusion: The levy of excise duty on the aluminium cans or torch bodies was upheld, and the assessee-side challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry and the charging provision cover articles produced in India, a specialised article need not have a general open market to be goods if it is recognisable in trade and falls within the statutory description; classification by the substance of the process and commercial identity will sustain the levy.

---