Marketability and principal manufacturer principles sustained excise liability, while Rule 25 penalty was found unsustainable.

Marketability remains a necessary condition for excisability, and the intermediate lamination product was treated as marketable because it was stored in controlled conditions, moved for further processing, and was capable of being bought and sold in the relevant sense. Where materials were supplied by the appellant and the job-work chain was under its control, the appellant was treated as the principal manufacturer for central excise purposes. The extended limitation plea failed because prior exposure to similar levy disputes supported invocation of the longer period. Penalty under Rule 25 was held unsustainable as it could not be imposed outside the statutory scheme governing excise demands and penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the intermediate product prepared for lamination was marketable and therefore excisable; (ii) whether duty liability could be fastened on the appellant as principal manufacturer where the process was carried out through job workers; (iii) whether the extended demand was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the intermediate product prepared for lamination was marketable and therefore excisable.

Analysis: The classification dispute did not end with inclusion in the tariff; the governing test remained excisability, which requires marketability. The product was shown to be stored in controlled conditions and moved for further processing, and the factual material did not support the claim that its limited shelf life destroyed marketability. The product answered the tariff description relied upon by the department and was capable of being bought and sold in the relevant sense.

Conclusion: The product was marketable and excisable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty liability could be fastened on the appellant as principal manufacturer where the process was carried out through job workers.

Analysis: The materials were supplied by the appellant, the processing was undertaken under its arrangement, and the movement documents for job work showed the appellant's control over the materials and the manufacturing chain. In such circumstances, the appellant was treated as the principal manufacturer for central excise purposes, and the plea that the job worker alone bore liability was not accepted.

Conclusion: Duty liability was correctly fastened on the appellant, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellant had prior exposure to disputes concerning the levy on pre-laminated boards and could not credibly claim absence of knowledge about the duty position. In that setting, the ingredients to sustain the longer limitation period were treated as established and the objection based on limitation failed.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Rule 25 could not be invoked independently in a manner that bypassed the statutory framework governing duty demands and the penalty mechanism under Section 11AC. The penalties imposed under Rule 25 in the impugned orders were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Rule 25 penalties were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands and the finding of excisability were upheld, but the penalties imposed under Rule 25 were deleted, so the appeals succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Marketability remains a necessary component of excisability, and where the assessee controls the materials and the job-work chain, it may be treated as the principal manufacturer; penalty provisions cannot be invoked beyond the statutory scheme governing excise demands.

---