- (1.) The question of law, the adjudication of which ultimately shall be decisive of the issues arising in these appeals filed under Sec. 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in brief "the Act"), is whether various goods mentioned in the Schedule of Excise Tariff are dutiable as such or they would be, "excisable goods" as defined in the Act, only when they are marketable or capable of being marketed.
(2.) Law on this issue appears to be fairly settled. Recently a three-Judge Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Hon'ble K. S. Paripoornan, J.) in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (74) ELT 22 while reversing the order of the Tribunal that "the conversion of PVC resin into PVC compound by the processes employed by the assessee, amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Act", therefore, it "was to be charged with excise duty" held, "the provisions of the Act mandate that a finding that the goods are marketable is a prerequisite or 'sine qua non' for the levy of duty".
(3.) But prior to adverting to it and noticing in brief how the law on this aspect has developed, it is but appropriate to mention that the precise dispute before the Tribunal was whether the appellants who are manufacturers and sellers of laminated sheets which fell under Tariff Item 68 of the Tariff Schedule prior to 28-2-1986 were liable to pay duty on such intermediate products produced by them, as were solutions of resin and water which were not stable, merely, because they were captively consumed. Since the question of law is common and has arisen in more or less similar circumstances in all the appeals, it is not necessary to give facts of each case.;