Marketable product test governs excise classification of flocked fabrics; intermediate coated stage cannot attract the higher levy.

Excise classification of flocked fabrics turned on whether the manufacturing process created a marketable product at the intermediate coated stage and whether the final goods answered the tariff description of impregnated, coated or laminated fabric. The court held that flocking was an integrated process, the coated stage was not independently marketable, and duty could not be levied on that stage. On that basis, the fabrics fell under Tariff Item 19-I rather than Tariff Item 19-III, and the higher levy based on the later classification could not be sustained. Excess duty recovered on the wrong classification was therefore refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the flocked fabrics manufactured by the petitioner were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 19-I or Tariff Item No. 19-III of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Whether the impugned orders directing duty under Tariff Item No. 19-III and denying the petitioner the benefit of the earlier classification could be sustained, with consequential refund relief.

Issue (i): Whether the flocked fabrics manufactured by the petitioner were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 19-I or Tariff Item No. 19-III of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The process of flocking was found to be an integrated manufacturing process in which the resin treatment or coating of the base fabric was merely incidental to the subsequent flocking. The coated stage was not a marketable commodity by itself, and excise duty could arise only when a marketable product came into existence. Since the final flocked fabric was not shown to answer the description of fabric impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or other artificial plastic materials in the manner contemplated by Tariff Item No. 19-III, the later classification under Item No. 19-III could not stand.

Conclusion: The flocked fabrics were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 19-I and not under Tariff Item No. 19-III.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders directing duty under Tariff Item No. 19-III and denying the petitioner the benefit of the earlier classification could be sustained, with consequential refund relief.

Analysis: The order of the Central Government proceeded on the erroneous premise that duty could be levied at the intermediate coated stage despite the absence of a marketable product. The subsequent trade notices and the Assistant Collector's own earlier classification under Tariff Item No. 19-I supported the petitioner's case, and the later reclassification based solely on the earlier revisional order lacked justification. Once the basis for the higher levy disappeared, excess duty collected after the relevant date was liable to be returned.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to refund of excess duty collected on the wrong classification.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in challenging the higher excise classification, and the authorities were required to assess the goods under the lower tariff item with refund of excess duty already recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty is leviable only on a marketable product that answers the tariff description applied to it, and an intermediate process stage that is not marketable cannot be treated as the taxable event for classification and levy.

---