Marketability as an excise condition: a designed nickel screen was not a distinct commercial commodity and escaped duty.

Chemically sensitised nickel screens with a transferred design were held not to be marketable goods for central excise purposes. The plain nickel screen underwent only a sensitisation process by which a design was transferred from a film onto the coated surface; no rubberising or engraving was involved. On the facts, the designed screen was specific to the particular design and was not shown to be known or sold in the market as a separate commercial commodity. Since marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, the absence of a marketable product negatived the duty levy and the adverse finding was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the chemically sensitised nickel screen with a transferred design was a marketable commodity liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The plain nickel screen was subjected only to a sensitisation process by which a design from a film was transferred onto the coated surface. No process of rubberising or engraving was involved. On the facts, the resulting designed screen was specific to the particular design and was not shown to be known or sold in the market as a separate identifiable commercial commodity. Since marketability is an essential ingredient of excisability, the absence of a marketable product negatived the levy.

Conclusion: The designed nickel screen was not a marketable commodity and was not liable to central excise duty; the finding against the assessee was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be levied unless the product resulting from the process is a marketable commodity known to the market as a distinct commercial article.

---