Spent sulphuric acid was held not to be marketable goods, so no central excise duty arose under the tariff heading.

Spent sulphuric acid was treated as not a manufactured product and not goods in the commercial sense, so it did not attract central excise duty under Tariff Heading 3402.90. The Tribunal preferred the later line of authority, and declined to follow the earlier contrary view because it had been influenced by the assessee's concession to pay duty. On that basis, the product was held not liable to duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether spent sulphuric acid is liable to central excise duty as goods falling under Tariff Heading 3402.90.

Analysis: The Tribunal preferred the later view that spent sulphuric acid is not a manufactured product and is not goods as commonly understood in trade. It noted that the contrary view in an earlier case had been influenced by the assessee's concession to pay duty and was, therefore, not a reliable precedent. In light of the later decision and the surrounding line of authorities, the Tribunal adopted the view that no duty liability arose on the product.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---