Marketability governs central excise liability; transient intermediate products are not excisable goods without distinct commercial identity.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable where the challenge extended to later administrative action and the revision proceedings had shifted to another authority; the pendency of statutory proceedings did not bar examination of the impugned action. On excisability, an intermediate product arising only as a transient stage in a continuous manufacturing process was not treated as excisable goods because marketability remains an essential element of central excise. Mere capacity for further use in manufacture was insufficient, and a deeming provision on removal did not convert a non-marketable intermediate stage into goods. The demand and classification approach were therefore rejected, and the pending revision was to be disposed of expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition; (ii) whether the in-process material produced in the continuous manufacturing process of Plexol-150 was excisable goods liable to duty.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition.

Analysis: The challenge was directed not only against the earlier administrative action but also against the later order made at Bombay, while the revision proceedings had shifted to an authority at New Delhi. The writ petition was therefore maintainable in the High Court, and the pendency of statutory proceedings did not by itself justify refusal to examine the legality of the impugned action.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the in-process material produced in the continuous manufacturing process of Plexol-150 was excisable goods liable to duty.

Analysis: Marketability is an essential ingredient of goods for central excise purposes. An article that exists only as a transient, intermediate stage in a continuous manufacturing process, has no independent identity, and cannot be practically marketed does not become goods merely because it is capable of further use in manufacture. The later explanation to Rule 9 could only create a limited deeming fiction as to removal; it did not deem every intermediate product to be goods. The Revenue's reliance on the mere utility of the material in further manufacture was therefore insufficient.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the in-process material was held not to be excisable goods.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded; the impugned demand and classification approach could not stand, and the statutory authority was directed to dispose of the pending revision expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: For central excise, an intermediate product is liable to duty only if it is marketable as a distinct commodity; a deeming provision regarding removal cannot, by itself, convert a non-marketable transient stage of manufacture into excisable goods.

---