Marketability is essential for excisability; absence of classification disclosure justified extended limitation and sustained penalty

Hypo solution obtained during film processing was held not liable to central excise duty because its marketability was not established and it had a short shelf life for instant use; the duty demand on that product was therefore set aside. On limitation, the absence of classification lists amounted to suppression of manufacture, so invocation of the extended period was justified and the plea of limitation was rejected. Duty demand on silver nitrate solution and silver nitrate crystals, along with the penalty, was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether hypo solution obtained during film processing was liable to central excise duty as excisable goods; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether hypo solution obtained during film processing was liable to central excise duty as excisable goods.

Analysis: Hypo solution had a short shelf life and was for instant use. Its marketability had not been established by the department, and the Tribunal's earlier view on the same product had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The demand on hypo solution was not sustainable and was set aside.

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

Analysis: No classification lists had been filed for the products, resulting in suppression of the fact of manufacture. The adjudicating authority's view that the extended period applied was therefore warranted.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the extended period was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Duty demand on hypo solution was set aside, while the demand on silver nitrate solution and silver nitrate crystals and the penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A product is not excisable unless its marketability is established, and suppression of the fact of manufacture justifies invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---