Court rules sliver not "goods" under excise duty Act due to non-marketable nature.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that sliver, an intermediate product in the manufacturing of woollen yarn, does not qualify as "goods" under the excise duty Act due to its non-marketable nature. Emphasizing sliver's non-cohesive and non-marketable characteristics, the court concluded that the department failed to prove its marketability. The judgment referenced previous case law and highlighted the department's burden to demonstrate marketability. As a result, the court ordered the discharge of bank guarantees in favor of the petitioners without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of sliver for excise duty liability.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a company manufacturing woollen yarn and the excise duty liability of the intermediate product "sliver" in the manufacturing process. The Finance Act of 1979 amended Tariff Item 43 to include sliver as excisable, leading to a dispute between the petitioners and the department. The petitioners argued that sliver is not a marketable commodity and should be exempt under Notification No. 82 of 1979 if used in manufacturing woollen tops. The department directed the petitioners to pay duty under protest, prompting the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners contended that sliver is an integral part of the manufacturing process for semi-worsted woollen yarn, highlighting its non-cohesive, brittle, and non-marketable nature. The Delhi High Court case of Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India was referenced, where the court held that excise duty is not leviable if there is no removal of goods as per Central Excise Rules. Rule 9 was subsequently amended in 1982 to deem any commodity in the manufacturing process as removed, challenging the Delhi judgment's basis. However, the High Court focused on whether sliver qualifies as "excisable goods" under the Act.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court concluded that sliver, like intermediate aluminium cans, does not qualify as "goods" under the Act due to its non-marketable nature. The department failed to prove sliver's marketability, with the petitioners affirming its non-marketability. The court emphasized that the onus is on the department to demonstrate marketability, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioners and ordering the discharge of bank guarantees without costs.

In summary, the judgment addresses the excise duty liability of sliver in the manufacturing process of woollen yarn, emphasizing its non-cohesive and non-marketable characteristics to determine its classification as "excisable goods" under the Act.

---