Marketability and suppression in excise law determine duty liability, extended limitation, and penalties on job-work clearances.

Marketability is an essential condition for excisability, and the Revenue bears the burden of proving that aluminium extrusions/profiles made on job-work basis were marketable in the condition of clearance. The text states that the goods were intermediate products for captive use, and no evidence showed marketability merely because they were listed in the tariff or similar goods were sold elsewhere; on that basis, duty was held unsustainable. It also states that the extended limitation period and penalties require proof of suppression, misdeclaration, or intent to evade duty. As the job-work process and records were disclosed, those provisions were said to be unjustified, making duty, interest, and penalties unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the aluminium extrusions/profiles manufactured on job-work basis were marketable and therefore excisable goods chargeable to duty. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the aluminium extrusions/profiles manufactured on job-work basis were marketable and therefore excisable goods chargeable to duty.

Analysis: Marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, and the burden to establish it lies on the Revenue. The goods were intermediate products manufactured for captive use by the principal manufacturer, and the record did not contain evidence that they were marketable in the condition in which they were removed from the job worker's premises. Mere inclusion in the tariff schedule or the fact that the job worker also cleared similar goods to the market was not sufficient to establish marketability of the goods in dispute.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the demand of duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The job-work activity and movement of inputs were recorded under the prescribed procedure, and the principal manufacturer had filed a declaration with the departmental authorities. The department was in possession of the relevant records and did not establish suppression, misdeclaration, or intent to evade duty. In the absence of these elements, invocation of the extended period and penalty provisions could not be justified.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the invocation of the extended period and penalties.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, interest, and penalties were unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be sustained unless the Revenue proves that the goods were marketable in the condition of clearance, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without proof of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---