Marketability of plastic jelly containers upheld when no fresh evidence justified a contrary view for the later period.

Plastic containers used for filling fruit jelly were treated as marketable and therefore excisable where the same goods had earlier been held marketable between the same parties and no fresh evidence was produced to support a different view for the later period. The inconsistency in the impugned reasoning also mattered: the record stated there was no material to prove marketability, yet it acknowledged the containers had no use except for filling with jelly or another liquid, which supported marketability. On that basis, the contrary finding could not stand, and the duty and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority were restored in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plastic containers used for filling fruit jelly were marketable and therefore excisable, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could take a different view for the later period without any additional material on record.

Analysis: The product had earlier been held marketable and excisable in proceedings between the same parties concerning the same goods, and that view had been confirmed in appeal. In the present matter, no fresh evidence was shown to justify a contrary finding for the subsequent period. The impugned order was also internally inconsistent, because while stating that there was no material to establish marketability, it simultaneously recorded that the containers had no use except for filling with jelly or other liquid, which itself indicated a marketable product. In these circumstances, the finding that the goods were not marketable could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The plastic containers were held to be marketable and excisable, and the order of the adjudicating authority confirming duty and penalty was restored in favour of the Revenue.

---