Marketability is essential for excise duty; molten iron not shown to be marketable, so the demand failed.

Molten iron was not shown to be marketable in the form in which it emerged from the process, so it was not established as excisable goods under central excise law. The tariff entry alone was insufficient where the very existence of the product as goods in that condition was disputed, and the Revenue led no evidence that it was bought and sold or known in trade as merchandise. As marketability is an essential ingredient for excise duty, the duty demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether molten iron was marketable and therefore excisable and dutiable under the central excise law.

Analysis: The liability to duty depended on whether molten iron was "goods" known in the market and capable of being marketed. The tariff description by itself was held not to be enough; marketability remained an essential ingredient where the department sought to levy excise duty on a product whose very existence in the relevant condition was disputed. The record showed no evidence from the Revenue that molten iron in the condition in which it emerged from the process was bought and sold or known in trade as merchandise, while the appellants produced material showing that it was obtained at very high temperature and was not marketed in that form. On that footing, the demand could not stand.

Conclusion: Molten iron was not shown to be marketable, and the demand of duty failed; the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a product is specifically mentioned in the tariff, it is not exigible to excise duty unless the department proves that it is marketable and known to the trade as goods.

---