Crude Vitamin A manufacturing and marketability evidence: goods treated as excisable; extended limitation u/s 11A(1) upheld, appeal dismissed.

Crude Vitamin A products manufactured by the assessee were held to be excisable because marketability depends on case-specific evidence, and the adjudicating authority and tribunal found the goods commercially known and capable of being marketed; non-sale by the assessee and a short shelf-life did not negate marketability, since 2-3 days was adequate for commercial sale and shelf-life is relevant only where goods are incapable of being sold within it. The extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was upheld because the assessee failed to disclose manufacture, kept no accounts, and paid no duty, justifying invocation of the extended period; the demands were therefore not time-barred. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether "Vitamin A Acetate Crude" and "Vitamin A Palmitate" (crude Vitamin A) are excisable goods by reason of being commercially marketable; (ii) Whether demands based on show cause notices for specified periods are barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the product in question satisfies the tests of manufacture and marketability so as to attract excise duty.

Analysis: The product arises during the intermediate stage of manufacture and is a commercially known entity falling under Tariff Head 2936.00. Marketability is a question of fact to be determined from the circumstances of each case; actual sale is not necessary, only capability of being bought and sold. Short shelf-life does not preclude marketability unless it is shown there is effectively no shelf-life. Concurrent findings of fact on marketability are to be disturbed only if perverse.

Conclusion: The product is marketable and therefore excisable; this conclusion is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands for the periods covered by three of the show cause notices are time-barred.

Analysis: Records indicate nondisclosure and non-maintenance of accounts by the assessee, permitting invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1). The Tribunals finding that one notice was time-barred and the other three were within limitation is supported by the facts and concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The demands for the three specified periods are not barred by limitation; this conclusion is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings on marketability and limitation are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An intermediate product that is manufactured and capable of being bought and sold (marketable) is liable to excise duty even if captively consumed; marketability is a question of fact and short shelf-life does not, by itself, negate marketability.

---