Excisability of processed aluminium pieces depends on proof of new marketable goods and component-part status.

Aluminium pieces drilled, punched and riveted were not shown to have emerged as new marketable goods with a distinct name, character or use, so they were not established as excisable articles under Tariff Item 68. The burden to prove manufacture and excisability lay on the Revenue, and it failed to adduce evidence that the processed pieces were goods capable of duty. The contention that they were component parts of standardised windows or doors was also rejected because tailor-made items cannot be treated as component parts on assumption; that conclusion depends on evidence in each case. The departmental challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium pieces subjected to drilling, punching and riveting and cleared in processed form were excisable goods liable to duty as component parts under Tariff Item 68, or merely aluminium sections not liable to duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding was that the processing did not bring into existence a new commodity having a distinct name, character or use, and the department had not adduced evidence to establish marketability or to show, piece-wise and class-wise, that the articles had become goods. The burden to prove manufacture and excisability lay on the Revenue. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that the articles were component parts of standardised windows or doors, noting that tailor-made items could not be treated as component parts merely on assumption and that such a conclusion depended on evidence in each case.

Conclusion: The processed aluminium pieces were not shown to be excisable goods or component parts chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 68, and the finding against the Department was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish that the goods had become dutiable manufactured articles, so the departmental appeals were dismissed.

---