Marketability test and excise credit: unfit goods may be treated as waste, while penalty needs proof of deliberate breach.

Unmarketable goods that never satisfied the test of marketability may be treated as waste for excise credit purposes, so denial of credit on that basis was not justified. The distinction that only goods arising after completion of manufacture can be waste was not accepted on these facts, because the items were intended to become finished excisable products but were unfit for marketing. Penalty was also held unsustainable where the record showed no mala fides, deliberate evasion, or intentional breach of procedure, and there was no material basis for penal imposition. The duty demand on the unaccounted credit item remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods manufactured but found unmarketable and unfit for use could be treated as waste under Rule 57D for denial of credit. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable in the absence of mala fides or deliberate contravention.

Issue (i): Whether goods manufactured but found unmarketable and unfit for use could be treated as waste under Rule 57D for denial of credit.

Analysis: Rule 57D was read with Rule 57A, under which final product means finished excisable goods. Since marketability is an essential attribute of excisable goods, goods that never satisfied the test of marketability could be treated as waste. The distinction drawn by the Department, that only a product arising after completion of manufacture can be waste, was not accepted on the facts because the goods were intended to be manufactured as finished excisable products but were unfit for marketing.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was not justified and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable in the absence of mala fides or deliberate contravention.

Analysis: The order did not disclose any basis for penalty and contained no allegation of mala fides, deliberate evasion, or intentional breach of procedure. In the absence of such material, the penal imposition could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of deletion of penalty, while the admitted duty demand on the unaccounted credit item remained undisturbed, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise credit purposes, unmarketable goods not satisfying the marketability test may be treated as waste, and penalty cannot be imposed without some basis showing mala fides or deliberate contravention.

---