Marketability of intermediate footwear material required factual proof before excise duty liability could be determined.

Liability to central excise duty on an intermediate footwear material depended on whether rubber-coated cotton fabric had emerged as a distinct marketable excisable commodity or remained part of a continuous manufacturing process. The Court held that marketability, the existence of a separate product, and whether the material was merely an unfinished stage of shoe manufacture were disputed factual questions that could not be resolved on the writ record. Those issues had to be examined by the departmental authority on evidence, so the excisability challenge could not succeed in writ proceedings and the petition was rejected, with liberty to pursue the matter before the statutory authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the intermediate material used in the manufacture of footwear was a distinct marketable product liable to central excise duty as processed cotton fabric under the relevant tariff item.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the material obtained after rubber solution was applied to cotton fabric and before it was fashioned into shoe uppers had emerged as a separate excisable commodity. The Court noted that the petitioners' claim of non-marketability and of one continuous manufacturing process depended on disputed questions of fact, including whether the intermediate product had any market and whether it was merely an unfinished stage in the manufacture of shoes. Those factual matters could not be conclusively determined on the writ record and had to be examined by the departmental authority on evidence.

Conclusion: The question of excisability could not be decided in favour of the petitioners on the writ record, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the factual and legal issues before the departmental authorities in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ proceeding, where liability to excise duty depends on disputed facts such as marketability and the existence of a separate manufactured product, the Court will not decide the issue on the pleadings alone and will leave the matter to be determined on evidence by the statutory authority.

---