Commercial parlance test governs tariff classification of polymer chips, which were held outside the plastics entry.

Statutory alternative remedy was treated as a matter of discretion, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, and was declined where the classification issue involved recurring liability and the departmental order was unreasoned. For tariff classification, polymer chips used for Nylon 6 yarn were assessed in their commercial and popular sense, not by technical description, and were found not to be known in trade as plastics of all sorts. Excise duty was held to arise on manufacture, and movement of chips within the composite factory for further processing was treated as removal for the scheme of the Act and Rules. The writ succeeded because the goods were outside the relevant tariff entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the availability of appeal and revision under the excise law barred the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether polymer chips obtained in the manufacture of Nylon 6 yarn fell within Item 15A(iii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as "plastics of all sorts". (iii) Whether excise duty could be levied in the absence of removal of the polymer chips from the factory premises within the meaning of the excise rules.

Issue (i): Whether the availability of appeal and revision under the excise law barred the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of a statutory remedy was treated as a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The petition involved a substantial question of classification affecting recurring monetary liability, the departmental stand had already been taken, the impugned order gave no reasons, and the matter had remained pending for years. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner to the departmental remedy was held to be neither adequate nor efficacious.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether polymer chips obtained in the manufacture of Nylon 6 yarn fell within Item 15A(iii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as "plastics of all sorts".

Analysis: The expression in a fiscal entry was held to have to be construed in its commercial and popular sense, as understood in the trade, and not by a purely scientific or technical test. On the admitted facts, the chips produced by the petitioner were of low molecular weight, had low relative viscosity, contained no plasticizers, were suited for textile fibre spinning, and were not known in the trade as plastics. The evidence from manufacturers and persons in the plastics trade, together with the manufacturer's own catalogues, supported the view that the relevant polymer chips were treated as raw material for synthetic fibres and not as plastics of all sorts.

Conclusion: Polymer chips used for Nylon 6 yarn were not covered by Item 15A(iii).

Issue (iii): Whether excise duty could be levied in the absence of removal of the polymer chips from the factory premises within the meaning of the excise rules.

Analysis: Excise duty was held to attach to manufacture, while the rules regulated the time of payment and removal. The chips were manufactured in one part of the premises, placed in airtight containers, and moved to another part of the premises for further manufacture of yarn. That movement was treated as removal within the scheme of the Act and Rules. The argument that there was no removal because both processes were within the same composite factory was rejected.

Conclusion: The no-removal contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the goods in question were held not to be plastics within the relevant tariff entry, and the impugned excise classification and levy were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing a fiscal tariff entry, the controlling test is the meaning of the goods in commercial and popular parlance, and a product not known in trade as the named commodity cannot be brought within the entry by a merely scientific or technical description.

---