https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41675 SC allowed the appeal, holding that the aluminium cans manufactured were not excisable goods under Entry 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court found the cans in their post-extrusion state were not marketable and became a distinct, usable component only after further finishing; evidence offered by respondents of marketability was unsatisfactory. Consequently manufacture was not liable to excise duty and the duty levied and collected from the appellant in the relevant period must be refunded. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41675 SC allowed the appeal, holding that the aluminium cans manufactured were not excisable goods under Entry 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court found the cans in their post-extrusion state were not marketable and became a distinct, usable component only after further finishing; evidence offered by respondents of marketability was unsatisfactory. Consequently manufacture was not liable to excise duty and the duty levied and collected from the appellant in the relevant period must be refunded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41675