Marketability and captive-use exemptions shape excise liability for molten iron, repair goods, and exempt final products.

Marketability must be proved by the department before duty can be levied on molten iron kept in molten form, and in the absence of evidence of marketability it was treated as non-excisable. Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was interpreted to cover excisable goods manufactured in a factory workshop for use in repairs or maintenance within the same factory, so pig iron, castings and forgings used captively for machinery repair qualified for exemption. Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was not available for inputs used to make splash plates because the final product was already exempt, so that benefit was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether melted iron obtained at a high temperature and maintained in molten form was marketable and therefore excisable; (ii) whether pig iron, castings and forgings used captively in making machinery parts for repair and maintenance of plant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E.; and (iii) whether the inputs used in the manufacture of splash plates were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. when the final product was itself exempt.

Issue (i): whether melted iron obtained at a high temperature and maintained in molten form was marketable and therefore excisable

Analysis: The material on record did not show that the molten iron was bought and sold in the market. The department bore the burden of proving marketability, and that burden was not discharged. In the absence of evidence showing that the product was marketable, the finding that it could not be subjected to duty was upheld.

Conclusion: The melted iron was not shown to be marketable and was not excisable; this issue was decided against Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether pig iron, castings and forgings used captively in making machinery parts for repair and maintenance of plant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E.

Analysis: The notification exempted excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory and intended for use in the same factory or any other factory of the same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery. The use of pig iron through the intermediate stages of castings and forgings, ultimately for machinery repairs and maintenance, satisfied the notification. The exemption was not confined only to the ultimate machinery part, but extended to the intermediate manufactured goods used for that purpose.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was available to the pig iron as well as the castings and forgings; this issue was decided against Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether the inputs used in the manufacture of splash plates were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. when the final product was itself exempt

Analysis: The final product, splash plates, was already exempted under the relevant exemption notification. Since Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was not available where the final product was exempt from duty, the benefit could not be extended to the inputs used for making splash plates.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was not available for the inputs used in the manufacture of splash plates; this issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the splash plates exemption issue, while the findings on marketability of molten iron and exemption for pig iron, castings and forgings were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Marketability must be proved by the department to levy excise duty on an intermediate product, and exemption notifications covering goods manufactured in a factory workshop for repairs or maintenance extend to intermediate goods used for that purpose unless the notification's conditions are not satisfied.

---