Marketability of excisable goods requires supporting evidence; unsupported opinion cannot justify seizure, confiscation or penalty.

Marketability and character of aluminium rods and wires as scrap cannot be determined on the adjudicating authority's own opinion alone; supporting expert or trade evidence is required. Where clearance took place as scrap under the physical supervision of Central Excise officers, without any allegation of collusion or connivance, and no departmental instruction requiring hammering or cutting was produced, seizure was treated as unwarranted. On those facts, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained, and the departmental appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods cleared as aluminium rods and wires were proved to be scrap or waste so as to justify seizure, confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The finding that the goods were marketable and usable as rods, wires or cables was held to rest only on the adjudicating authority's own opinion, without any expert evidence or trade evidence. It was further noticed that the goods had been cleared as scrap under the physical supervision of Central Excise officers, with no allegation of collusion or connivance, and that no departmental instruction requiring hammering or cutting of the goods had been produced. In these circumstances, the seizure was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The goods were treated as scrap and waste on the facts of the case, and the confiscation, penalty and seizure could not be sustained. The departmental appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding on marketability or character of excisable goods cannot be sustained merely on the adjudicating authority's own opinion in the absence of supporting evidence, especially where clearance was made under departmental supervision.

---