Excise classification must track manufacture, not destination, and dual entry treatment for one commodity is impermissible.

Excise classification must follow the statutory description of goods as manufactured, and a single commodity cannot be split between two tariff entries to apply one entry's duty rate and another entry's tariff value on the basis of destination or end-use. The document also notes that a writ petition may still be entertained where the impugned classification is patently and without jurisdiction, even if a revisional remedy exists; delay may be excused where statutory appeals were pursued and circumstances justify it. The matter was remitted for fresh classification and duty determination under the statutory scheme after the impugned lists and appellate orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternate statutory remedy or by delay. (ii) Whether plywood manufactured by the petitioners could be treated as falling under one sub-item for duty and another sub-item for tariff value by applying a destination-based classification.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternate statutory remedy or by delay.

Analysis: The impugned classification was held to be patently wrong and made without jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the existence of a revisional remedy did not preclude recourse to writ jurisdiction. The time taken in pursuing statutory appeals and the surrounding circumstances were treated as sufficient to decline interference on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by alternate remedy or delay, and writ jurisdiction could be exercised.

Issue (ii): Whether plywood manufactured by the petitioners could be treated as falling under one sub-item for duty and another sub-item for tariff value by applying a destination-based classification.

Analysis: Excise duty is a levy on production or manufacture, and the destination or end-use of the goods is not the governing criterion for classification. Goods specifically covered by one entry in the tariff cannot be split so as to attract the higher rate under one clause and the higher tariff value under another. The addition of a condition tying classification to clearance to tea factories was therefore inconsistent with the charging scheme, the tariff entries, and the notifications.

Conclusion: The destination-based bifurcation and dual classification were illegal, and the impugned lists and appellate orders were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh determination of classification and duty in accordance with the statutory scheme, after setting aside the impugned modified lists and appellate orders.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise purposes, classification must follow the statutory description of the goods as manufactured, and a single commodity cannot lawfully be treated under two different entries to apply one entry's tariff value and another entry's rate of duty on the basis of destination or end-use.

---