Distinct commercial identity test defeats excise demand; job-work exemption applies to customer-supplied goods processed for charge alone.

Writ relief was maintainable because the alleged alternative remedy was not efficacious and the controversy turned on whether the admitted manufacturing process created a new product. Nylon and rayon warp sheets were held not to acquire a distinct commercial identity and therefore did not fall under the residuary excise entry. Even if some change had occurred, the goods were made from customer-supplied materials for job charge alone, and incidental use of cotton weft did not exclude the job-work exemption. The excise demand and refusal of refund were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy and disputed questions of fact; (ii) Whether nylon and rayon warp sheets were a new excisable product falling under the residuary entry, or were covered by the job-work exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy and disputed questions of fact;

Analysis: The scope of the writ petition was wider than the relief available in the statutory appeal, and the facts did not disclose an efficacious alternative remedy that would bar constitutional relief. The nature of the manufacturing process was substantially admitted, and the real controversy was whether the admitted process resulted in a new product. The Court held that the dispute was not of such complexity as to require rejection of the writ petition in limine.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy or disputed facts.

Issue (ii): Whether nylon and rayon warp sheets were a new excisable product falling under the residuary entry, or were covered by the job-work exemption notification.

Analysis: The Court held that the warp sheets remained nylon or rayon yarn held together by cotton weft and did not acquire a distinct commercial identity so as to amount to a new manufactured product. Even assuming some change occurred, the materials were supplied by customers, the petitioner performed the work for charge only, and the incidental use of cotton weft did not take the case outside the notification granting exemption to goods manufactured as job work. The residuary entry was therefore inapplicable, and the exemption applied.

Conclusion: The warp sheets were not liable to be treated as a separate excisable product under the residuary entry, and in any event the petitioner was entitled to the job-work exemption.

Final Conclusion: The impugned excise demand and rejection of refund could not be sustained, and the petitioner obtained relief in the writ proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods do not become a separate excisable commodity unless processing brings into existence a product with a distinct commercial identity, and a job-work exemption applies where the article is supplied by the customer and returned after processing for the job charge alone, notwithstanding incidental use of supporting materials.

---