1987 (6) TMI 41 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dip solution is liable for excise duty.
2. Whether the dip solution falls under Item No. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Whether the dip solution is marketable and thus subject to excise duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability for Excise Duty:
The petitioner, a company manufacturing tyres, uses a dip solution in its production process. The dip solution, a mixture of substances including resorcinol and formaldehyde, is prepared and consumed within the factory. The central question is whether this dip solution is liable for excise duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise initially concluded that the dip solution was assessable to duty under Item No. 15A of the Tariff. However, upon appeal, the Collector of Central Excise reversed this decision, stating that the dip solution was not excisable under Tariff Item No. 15A. The petitioner argued that the dip solution is not marketable and thus cannot be charged for excise.

2. Classification under Item No. 15A:
Item No. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff pertains to "Artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, and other materials and articles specified below." The petitioner contended that the dip solution does not qualify as an artificial or synthetic resin and therefore should not fall under Item No. 15A(1). The Deputy Chief Chemist's report and cross-examination revealed that the dip solution is a phenoplast in liquid form and without stabilizers, it spoils quickly, making it non-marketable. The appellate Collector agreed, noting that the dip solution is not known in the market as resin but as a solution of resins and other substances.

3. Marketability and Excise Duty:
The petitioner argued that the dip solution is not marketable as it must be consumed within hours of its preparation and cannot be sold. The appellate Collector supported this view, stating that the dip solution is not goods within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it is merely an in-process material for tyre manufacture. The Supreme Court's ruling in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India was cited, where the Court held that goods must be marketable to attract excise duty. The Court found that the aluminum cans in that case were not marketable in their crude form, similar to the dip solution in the present case.

Judgment:
The Court concluded that the dip solution in its current state is not saleable and has no market. The evidence showed that the solution is manufactured and used solely by the petitioner and lacks stability without stabilizers. Consequently, it cannot be considered under Item No. 15A(1) and does not attract excise duty. The petition was successful, and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayer 'b', with no order as to costs.