Slurry yeast not subject to excise duty due to lack of marketability despite short shelf life.

The tribunal rejected the department's appeal, concluding that slurry yeast arising in beer manufacture was not liable to excise duty as it lacked proven marketability despite having a two-day shelf life. The tribunal emphasized that mere shelf life does not establish marketability, requiring evidence of commercial recognition and marketing capability. Without proof of actual or potential marketing, the goods were deemed non-excisable, aligning with a Supreme Court precedent that shelf life alone does not determine marketability.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether slurry yeast arising in the course of beer manufacture is a marketable commodity and liable to excise duty.

Analysis:
The departmental appeal challenged the order-in-appeal that deemed slurry yeast not liable to excise duty as it was considered not marketable. The department argued that the yeast, with a shelf life of two days, could be marketed, citing a precedent where actual sales were not necessary to establish marketability. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a different judgment where yeast with a shelf life of 6 to 8 hours was not duty liable. The department contended that the yeast in question could be marketed due to its two-day shelf life, distinguishing it from the precedent. However, the tribunal found no evidence of the yeast being marketed or in a marketable form. It emphasized that shelf life alone does not determine marketability, requiring evidence of commercial recognition and capability for marketing. Citing a Supreme Court case, the tribunal clarified that a product's shelf life does not automatically make it marketable unless supported by additional evidence of actual or potential marketing. As the department failed to provide such evidence, the tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that the goods were not excisable due to lack of proven marketability.

---