Marketability and manufactured character determine excisability of waste cullets; alternative remedy objection was rejected in writ jurisdiction.

Broken glass/cullets arising during manufacture were treated as waste, not as excisable goods, because they did not emerge as a manufactured product or marketable commodity and could not be taxed by analogy as "other glass" under the tariff. The Court applied the settled principle that excisability depends on goods emerging from manufacture and on common-parlance marketability. The objection that writ relief should be declined due to an alternative statutory remedy was rejected, as the writ had remained pending for years and had already been fully heard on merits. The excise demand and connected orders were therefore held unsustainable in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether broken glass/cullets arising in the course of manufacture were excisable goods or liable to duty as "other glass" under the tariff. (ii) Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue (i): Whether broken glass/cullets arising in the course of manufacture were excisable goods or liable to duty as "other glass" under the tariff.

Analysis: Duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is attracted only to goods that emerge from manufacture. The Court applied the settled principle that a taxing entry must be understood in common parlance and that marketability is a relevant indicator of excisability. Broken glass/cullets were found to be waste arising during the manufacturing process, without independent marketability or the character of a manufactured product or by-product. On that basis, they could not be brought within Tariff Item No. 23A or treated as excisable merely by analogy as "other glass".

Conclusion: The broken glass/cullets were held not to be excisable goods and no excise duty could be levied on them.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: Although an alternative statutory remedy was available, the writ petition had remained pending for years and the matter had been fully heard on merits. In those circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to decide the controversy in writ jurisdiction rather than drive the petitioner to another forum.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned excise demand and connected orders were unsustainable, and the petitioner was granted relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Waste arising in manufacture is not exigible to excise duty unless it emerges as marketable goods under the tariff and the absence of marketability and manufactured character defeats excisability.

---