Marketability test defeats excise duty on broken poles where goods were not shown to be marketable as PPC poles.

Broken poles were held not liable to central excise duty under Chapter 68 because marketability as PPC poles was not established on the record. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the broken poles constituted marketable goods and therefore could attract duty. Applying the principle that excise liability depends on the goods being marketable as such, it found no basis to sustain the levy and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether broken poles were liable to central excise duty under Chapter 68 on the footing that they were marketable as PPC poles.

Analysis: The only substantive question was whether the broken poles could be treated as marketable goods for the purpose of levy. On the record, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the broken poles were marketable as PPC poles and therefore amenable to duty under Chapter 68.

Conclusion: The broken poles were not liable to duty, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability to excise duty requires marketability of the goods as such; where that character is not established, duty cannot be sustained.

---