Marketability and limitation determine excise duty exposure for maltodextrin when no suppression or misdeclaration is shown.

Maltodextrin was discussed as a product whose duty liability turned on two points: limitation and marketability. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable where a classification list describing the product and process had been approved and there was no suppression, deliberate misdeclaration, or mismatch between declared and actual manufacture. On excisability, the product was treated as an unstable intermediate solution, and the Revenue did not prove that it was marketable as manufactured; marketability had to be assessed in that condition, not on possible stabilisation by additives. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the classification dispute did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether maltodextrin was excisable goods and, if so, how it was to be classified.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A classification list describing maltodextrin and the manufacturing process had been filed and approved. In the absence of any finding of suppression, deliberate misdeclaration, or any difference between the declared and actual manufacturing process, mere classification under a heading different from the one later claimed by the Revenue did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand for the relevant period was time barred and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether maltodextrin was excisable goods and, if so, how it was to be classified.

Analysis: The product was shown to be an unstable intermediate solution liable to spoilage within a short time, and the evidence before the Tribunal did not establish that, as it existed, it was capable of being marketed. Marketability had to be judged on the condition of the product as manufactured, not on the possibility of stabilising it by adding preservatives or additives. Applying the principle that the Revenue must prove marketability, the product could not be treated as excisable goods.

Conclusion: Maltodextrin was not excisable goods and was not liable to duty; the classification dispute did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A product is excisable only if, as manufactured, it is marketable, and the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or deliberate misstatement with intent to evade duty.

---