Holding

Starch hydrolysate is not a "goods" within the meaning of the Central Excise Act and therefore is not liable to excise duty.

Summary

The respondent, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, manufactured sorbitol and also produced starch hydrolysate, which it used internally. The Collector of Central Excise claimed that the hydrolysate was glucose, fell under Item 1‑E of the Central Excise Tariff and was liable to excise duty. The respondent argued that the hydrolysate was not a "goods" because it was highly unstable, never marketed and only an intermediate for sorbitol production. The Tribunal held that it was not marketable and set aside the duty. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that for excise liability the product must be a distinct article known in the market and capable of being sold; the burden of proof lies on the revenue. Evidence showed the hydrolysate was unstable, had no market and the revenue produced no enquiry. Consequently, the Court declared starch hydrolysate not a "goods" within the meaning of the Central Excise Act and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether starch hydrolysate manufactured by the respondent qualifies as "goods" within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Whether excise duty is payable on captive consumption of such starch hydrolysate.
Who bears the burden of proving marketability of the product.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Rules, 1944
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944s. 11-A, s. 3, s. 35L, s. 4

Subjects

excise dutygoodsmarketabilitycaptive consumptionCentral Excise Actstarch hydrolysatemanufactureburden of proof

Judgment

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA
A v. ).,
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES

AUGUST 10, 1989
i:i
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.)
B ·~

Central Excises And Salt Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 1944:
Sections 3, 4, 11-A and 35L-'Goods'-Starch hydrolysate-Whether
'goods-Whether duty leviabfe.
',

The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of sorbitol,'7)
" c which fell under items 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. During a visit to
the factory premises by the Central Excise Officers it was found that the .~
+ respondent also manufactured and captively consumed starch bydroly-
)~
sate which, according to the appellant, was glucose and fell under Item
~~
l·E of the Central Excise Tariff. In reply to the show-aiuse notice issued
by the appellant, the respondent contended that starch bydrolysate was
D not 'goods' since the same was not marketable and therefore no excise
duty was payable l?n it; and that even if the same was liable for duty it
would not be under Item l-E. There were adjudication proceedings
thereafter, and the adjudicator held that starch bydrolysate was glucose
and fell under item l-E, and that the respondent bad suppressed the fact 'j
of manufacture thereof. In the premises, the adjudicator ordered pay-
·~ \ ment
',-
of excise duty and further imposed a penalty.

The Tribunal, however, allowed the respondent's appeal and held .
that starch hydrolysate manufactured by the respondent was not, and
never was, a marketable commodity, and hence that would not be
•goods' on which excise duty could be charged. _f •
F
The Revenue appealed to this Court. Before this Court, it was
inter alia contended on behalf of the appellant: (i) that the Tribunal
misdirected itself in applying the proper test for the determination of
the question, and that the true test to determine in a matter of this
nature was to consider not only whether starch hydrolysate was actually
G marketable but also to consider whether conceptually the said goods
were capable of being marketed, and the Tribunal should have
examined or called for fresh evidence to determine that question; and
J.
'•
(ii) even transient items of articles could be 'goods', provided these were
known in the market as distinct and separate articles having distinct
and separate uses, and if these ..ere capable of being marketed even
H during short period.
784
"''; -''.,i

COLLECTOR OF_C.E. v. A.S .. ENTERPRISES 785
.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that; (i) starch; • A
hydrolfsate which was utilised in the manufacture of sorbitol, was not
befog marketed and was not capable of being marketed in view of its
liighly unstable character resulting in fragmentation even if kept for a
day or two; and (ii) starch hydrolysate was not ..;;,rketable product and
would not therefore .be "goods" on the manufacture of which excise
duty could.have been demanileci or would have been payable and there- B
fore for non-payment of duty, there had been no negligence or failure.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

\~ .: · HELD: (I) If the process ~r activity of the assessee brings into
e~i;tenc_e an article different and distinct from wh11t it w..S before the c
process and a new identifiable _article known in the market as such
comes intii being, then the use of such article-in the instant case star~h
hydrolysate-would attract duty on the part of the assessee even in
captive consumption. [788G] ' · ·

South Bihar Sugar Mills ltd., etc. v. Union of India & Ors., D
[1968] 3 SCR 21, referred to.

(2) The word "manufacture" implies a change but every change
in the raw material is not ,manufacture. There must be such a transfor-
mation thai a new and different article emerges having a distinct name,
characteror use. [790D] E

, · Union of India v~ Delhi Cloth & General Mills ltd., [1963] Supp.·
I SCR586.

": \ (3) Duty is levied on goods. As the Central Excises and Salt Act,
· ~~ 1944 does not define "goods"• the legislature must be taken to have F
, used that word in its ordinary, dictionary meaning. The dictionary
meaning of the expression is that to become goods it must be something
which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold and is
· known to the market. It would be such an article which would attract
'duty' under the Act. [790E]
G
Union Carbide India ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., I 1986] 24
ELT 169.

(4) It is true that the goods with unstable character can be
theoretically marketable if there was a market of such transient type of
articles which are goods. But olie bas to take a practical appr.-b. [792G] ff
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

A (5) It was the duty of the Reven~e to adduce evidence or proof
that the articles in. question were goods. If the Department was to
charge duty of exci~~ on this starch hydrolysate as one form of glucose it
;;

would be the burden on the Department to establish that starch
hydrolysate was not merely martketable but was being marketed as
glucose in some form. The Revenue has not produced any evidence
B whatsoever though asked to do so. Bhor Industries Ltd. Bombay v.
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, [1989] I SCC 602. [793A-F]

(6) It appears that there was no market enquiry by the Revenue. \
In _view of the fact that there was positive evidence that starch hydroly:_/
sate was never marketed and in view of further fact that in the light of
C the nature of the g.lods being highly unstable, it was highly improbable
that the goods were capable of being marketed and there being in spite
of the opportuniti~s, no evidence produced at all that the goods, in fact,
were capable of being marketable, it must be held, as did the Tribunal,
that the starch hydrolysate were not dutiable under the Central Excises
and Salt Act, 1944. [794G-7_9SAJ
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2215(NA)of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2. 11.87 of the Customs
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal
fl No. 478 of 86-D (Order No. 877 of 1987-D.)

A.K. Ganguli, T. V.S.N. Chari, P. Parmeswaran and Sushma
Suri for the Appellant.

Soli J. Sorabjee, R. Narain, Kamal Mehta, P.K. Ram and D.N. ) ·•.
F Misra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MliKHARJI, J. This is an appeal under section
35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to
G as 'the Act'). The appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd
November, 1987 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'). The respondent, viz., Mis Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises
manufacture sorbitol falling under C'<em 68 of the erstwhile Central
Excise Tariff. There was a visit to th·: factory premises of the respon-
H dent by the Central Excise Office" m 26th February. 1985. It was

J
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. A.S. ENTERPRISES IMUKHARJI, J.) 787

alJowed that it was found that the respondent manufactured and
captively consumed starch hydrolysate but the respondent had failed
to take out a licence with reference to the said manufacture of starch
hydrolysate and had been removing the same without, according to the
/ appellant, payment of duty and without observing the necessary
central excise formalities. It was the view of the revenue that starch
i hydrolysate was glucose and, therefore, fell under Item 1-E of the
B
Central ·Excise Tariff, which covered glucose in whatever form includ-
ing liquid glucose. Accordingly, a show oiuse notice was issued to the
respond~nt. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondent contending
~that starch hydrolysate was not '_'goods" since the same was not
marketable and, therefore, no excise duty would be payable on the
same. In those circumstances, it was submitted that the proposed
adjudication by the Collector following the aforesaid notice was .with- c
·1
out jurisdiction in view of section I IA of the Act. It was urged that
starch hydrolysate is not glucose and that even if the same was liable
for duty it would not be under item 1-E. According to him, starch
hydrolysate was an intermediate product in the manufacture of
sorbitol and no duty could be demanded on the same. There were
adjudication proceedings thereafter. In the said proceedings, affida- D
vits were filed on behalf of the respondent, witnesses on behalf of the
, revenue were cross-examined and the Collector also cross-examined
~\ the witnesses of the respondent. By an order dated 6th December,
1985, the Collectqr of Central Excise, Baroda rejected !'he contention
of the respondent. It was held by him that starch hydrolysate was

- glucose and fell under item 1-E of the Central Excise Tariff and that E
the respondent had suppressed the fact of manufacture thereof for
consumption in the further manufacture of sorbitol. In the premises,
he ordered the respondent to pay excise duty amounting to
1
,. \ Rs.34,92,559.55 paise and imposed a penalty of Rs. JO lakhs.
- Aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the respondent preferred
al} appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 2nd F
November, 1987, being the order under appeal, held that starch
hydrolysate manufactured by the respondent is not and never was
marketable commodity, and hence that would not be "goods" on
which excise duty could b.e charged. In the premises, the Tribunal
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and' set aside the order of
. } . the Collector. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up in appeal G
to this Court under section 35L(b) of the Act.

On behalf of the appellant, Shri Ganguly contended that the
Tribunal misdirected itself in applying the proper test for the determi-
nation of the question. He urged that the. true test to determine in a
H
f
".<

'
•

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
.,!
)._
''"°'
~i
A matter of this nature was to consider not only whether starch hydroly-
sate was actually marketable but also to consider whether conceptually
!~ the said goods in question were capable of being marketable. It was
~" urged by Shri Ganguly that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in not
)~
appreciating this aspect of the matter and did not as such examine or

'r- .
view the evidence on record in the proper perspective. He urged that
l! 8 in the aforesaid light and in view of the findings made by the Collector,
there was no ground for the Tribunal to interfere with the order of the
Collector. He further submitted that in any event, if the Tribunal was
not fully satisfied with the evidence on record to determine whether
starch hydrolysate were goods in the sense of being marketable, then ·
i~. the Tribunal should have, in the facts and the circumstances of the case J
t
ii
c and in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back for appraise-
ment and examination in the light of the true principle or ,the Tribunal .l,
'
II
".~f
should have examined or called for the fresh evidence to determine ,,
this question. The Tribunal not having done so, has failed to render
!,,,, justice and as such the order of the Tribunal is bad, according to Shri
Ganguly. Shri Ganguly further submitted that in starch hydrolysate
·;f· D the percentage of dissolved solids present is 64. It was submitted that -~
the criterion laid down in the IS Specification for liquid glucose or
Ift' glucose syrup, the two terms are being used synonymously by the
! Indian Standard Institution, was not satisfied in this case. The IS
Specification defines liquid glucose or glucose syrup as "a refined and ~
i concentrated non-crystalizable aqueous solution of d-glucose, maltose
Ii and other polymers of d-glucose, obtained by controlled hydrolysis of
I

-
:1.;t. starch containing material''. The United States Pharmeopeia XIX
!I
describes liquid hydrolysis of starch, consisting chiefly of dextrose,
dextrins, maltose and water and in these circumstances and in view of
the components and the dictionary meaning as discussed by the
I
Tribunal in its order, it is urged that it cannot be said that the said
F goods is the same thing as glucose or glucose syrup. In the premises, it ) •
was contended that the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the
.," matter.
We are concerned in this appeal with starch hydrolysate and,
therefore, if the process or activity of the assessee brings into existence
an article different and distinct from what it was before the process and
G a new identifiable article known in the market as such comes into
being, then the use of such starch hydrolysate captively would attract
duty on the part of the assessee even in captive consumption. It is not
in dispute as the Tribunal noted in the instant case that starch is
hydrolysed by the respondent. The operation of hydrolysis, it is con-
tended, results in bringing into being starch hydrolysate which is
H utilised in the manufacture of sorbitol. The question is-whether
COLLECTOR OF .C.E. v. A.S. ENTERPRISES [MUKHARJI, J.)

starch hydrolysate is "goods". The case of the respondent was that the A
starch hydrolysate being wholly unstable and quickly fragmented and
losing its character in a couple of days, the same could, therefore,
neither be stored nor marketed. In the premises, it was the case of the
respondent that starch hydrolysate was not marketable product and
would not, therefore, be "goods" on the manufacture of which excise
duty could have been demanded or would have been payable and, .B
therefore, for non-payment of duty, there has been no negligence or
failure on the part of the respondent and as such sectipn 11-A of the
{ Act was not applicable. In this connection, it would be instructive to
\.k refer and it would be necessary to rely on the principles laid down by
this Court in South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., etc. v. Union of India &
Ors., (1968] 3 SCR 21. There, the appellant companies manufactured C
sugar by carbonation process and paid excise duty on sugar manufac-
tured by them under Item I of Schedule I to the Act. According to one
. affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, filed in those proceedings,
. these manufacturers employed a process of burning lime-stone with
coke in a lime kiln with a regulated amount of air whereby a mixture of
gases was generated consisting of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen D
and a small quantity of carbon monoxide. The gas thus produced was
thereafter .compressed so as to achieve pressure exceeding atmo-
spheric pressure and then passed through a tank containing sugarcane
juice so as to remove impurities from it and to refine the juice. For that
process of refining it was only the carbon dioxide in the gas which was
used and the other gases, i.e., nitrogen, oxygen and carbon monoxide E
escaped into the atmosphere by a vent provided for the purpose. The
carbon dioxide content in this mixture of gases ranged from 27 to
36.5%. Similarly, another company manufactured Soda ash by solvay
ammonia soda process for which also carbon dioxide was required and
\ thiks --:as pkro duced by the petitioner therein by burning lime-stone with
co e m a 11n in the same manner as the appellant sugar manufacturing p
companies employing the carbonation process. The respondents
therein regarded all the companies as manufacturers of compressed
carbon dioxide and levied excise duty on them under Item 14-H in
Schedule I to the Act. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court
challenging the validity of the excise duty but the same petitions were
dismissed. It was contended, inter alia, on behalf of the appellants G
therein that the lime kiln was maintained to generate a mixture of
gases and not carbon dioxide and at no stage in the process of generat-
ing this mixture and passing it through the sugarcane juice was carbon
dioxide-which formed one of the contents of the mixture-either
compressed, liquidified or solidified. The mixture of gases so genera-
ted was not carbon dioxide as known to the market nor was it accord- H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19891 3 S.C.R.
J..
ing to the specifications laid down by the Indian Standards Institution
A
which required the carbon dioxide content to be at least 99%. It was,
therefore, contended that the excise duty sought to be recovered on
the contend of carbon dioxide in the mixture of gases could not fall
under Item 14-H. It was further contended that the duty being on
goods it could be charged only on goods known as carbon dioxide in
B the trade and marketable as such. As is evident from the said narration
of facts the contentions urged were more or less similar to the conten-
tions involved in the instant appeal before us. It was held by this Court
that the gas generated by the appellant companies was kiln gas and not '
carbon dioxide as known to the trade, i.e., to those who dealt in it o<_/
who used it. The kiln gas in question, therefore, was neither carbon
dioxide nor compressed carbon dioxide known as such to the commer- J
c cial community and therefore, could not attract item 14-H in the First --\
Schedule. This Court reiterated at p. 31 of the report that the Act in
question charges duty on manufacture of goods. The word "manufac-
ture" implies a change but every change in the raw material is not
manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and
D different article must emerge having a distinct name, character or use.
The duty is levi~d on goods. As the Act does not define goods, the
legislature must be taken to have used that word in its ordinary, dic-
tionary meaning. The dictionary meaning of the expression is that to ~
become goods it must be something which can ordinarily come to the I
market to be bought and sold and is known to the market. It would be
E such an article which would attract duty under the Act. This Court
referred to the previous decision in the case of Union of India v. Delhi
Cloth & General Mills Ltd., [19631 Suppl. 1 SCR 586. Therefore, in
this instant appeal, in order to determine whether starch hydrolysate
was "goods" or not, it is necessary to determine whether there was any
application of process to the raw materials and as a result of that
.i •
r
F application there emerged new and different article having a distinc- -
tive name, character or use and the resultant product being goods in
the sense of being marketable or marketed. In this connection, Shri
Soli Sorabjee referred us to the observations of this Court in Union
Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [19861 24 ELT 169.
There, this Court reiterated that in order to attract excise duty, the
G article manufactured must be capable of being sold to a consumer.
Entry 84 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution specifically ..!.., -, .
speaks of "duty of excise on tobacco or other goods manufactured or
produced in India" and it is now weil accepted that excise duty is an
indirect tax, in which the burden of the imposition is passed on to the
ultimate consumer. This Court held that in that context, the expres-
H sion "goods manufactured or produced" must refer to articles which
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. A.S. ENTERPRISES [MUKHARJJ, J.] 791
'
), are capable of being sold to a consumer. To become "goods'', an A
article .must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to
be bought and sold. The Court found in that case that aluminium cans
prepared by the appellants therein were employed entirely by it in the
manufacture of flashlights and were not sold as aluminium cans in the
market. It also appeared from the records that aluminium cans at the
point of levy of excise duty existed in a crude and elementary form B
which were incapable of being employed. as a component in a flash-
light. These cans had sharp uneven edges and in order to use them as a
component in making flashlight cans, these cans had to undergo
~ various processes such as trimming, threading and redrawing. After
that these .were reeded, beaded and anodize.d or painted, it was at that
point only that these became distinct and complete component capable c
of being used as flashlight cans for housing battery cells and having a
bulb fitted to the can. This Court noted that it was diffcult to believe
that the elementary and unfurnished form in which these existed
immediately after extrusion sufficed to attract a market. The assertion
of the appellant on affidavit that aluminium cans were unknown in that
form in the market had not been proved to the contrary by any D
satisfactory material by the respondents therein. This Court further
found that not a single instance had been provided by the respondents
· domenstrating that such aluminium cans had a market. The conduct of
c ~ the appellants in the 'past, having regard to the circumstances of the
case, would not serve as evidence of the marketability of the
aluminium cans, it was in that case. This Court noted that record E
disclosed that whatever aluminium cans were produced by the appel-
lants were subsequently developed by it into a completed and
perfected component for being employed as flashlight cans. In those
circumstances, the aluminium cans produced by the appellants were not
\ liable to excise duty under section 3 of the Act read with Item 27 of the
~ Central Excise Tariff.·• . F

In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Cent-
ral Excise, Bombay, [1989] 1 SCC 602, this Court had to deal with the
liability to duty on intermediate products and it was reiterated that
liability to excise duty arises only when there is manufacture of goods
which is marketable or capable of being marketed. It was held that G
excise is a duty on goods as specified in the Schedule. The taxable
} event in the case of excise duties is the manufacture of goods. Under
the Act, in order to be Roods as specified in the Entry, it was essential
that as a result of manufacture goods must come into existence. For
articles to be goods, these must be known in the market as such or
these must be capable of being sold in the market as goods. Actual sale H
------------------------------

792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

A is not necessary. User in the captive consumption is not determinative
but the articles must be capable of being Sold in the market or known
in the market' as goods. -It is; therefore, necessary to find out whether
t_hese are goods, that is to' say, artides as known in the market as
separate distinct identifiable commodities and whether the tariff duty
levied would be as specified in the Schedule. Marketability, therefore,
B is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable under the Schedule to
Central Excise Tariff Aci, 1985. In that case, the Court found that
crude PVC firms as produced by the appellant were not known in the
market and eould not be sold in the market and' was not capable of
being markr.table;The Court further reiterated that it was the duty of
the revenue to· adduce evidence or proof that the articles in question
c were goods. The Tribunal went wrong, it was held; in not applying the
test of marketability.· There being no coptrary evidence found by the
Tribunal in that case, it was held thatin"those circumstances, no excise
duty should be charged.

lt)s In this light, therefore, that the evidence discussed by· the
D Tribunal in this case, have to be viewed in order to test the validity of
the order impugned. The case of the respondent had always been that
starch hydrolysate_ was not being marketed and is not capable of being
marketed in view of its highly unstable character resulting in fermenta-
tion even if kept for a day or two. Shri Ganguly appearing for the
revenue sought to urge that the Tribunal was wrong in approaching the
E problem in that light. -The test was not whether the starch hydrolysate
was not of a highly unstable character and resulted in fermentation
even in a day or two, but whether it was capable of being marketable.
He submitted that the test applied was not the true test. He urged that
even transient items of articles can be goods, provided that these were
known in the market as distinct and separate articles having distinctive
_· F, and separate uses, these would still become goods if these were cap-
-able of being marketed even during short period. From a conceptual
and.jurisprudential point of view, Shri Ganguly is right. But we are ,.......
__ concerned with the question whether actual goods in-question were ,' -
marketed or, in other words, if not, whether these are marketable or
not. It is true that the goods with unstable character can be theoreti-
0 cally marketable if there was a market of such transient type of articles
which are goods. But one has to take a practical approach. The asses-
see produced evidence in the form of affidavit. One Shri Khandor,
who filed an· affidavit in support of the case of the respondent, had
stated in his affidavit that completely hydrolysed starch would start
fermenting and decomposin ' and at higher concentration it would ~
H start crystalizing out within i..·o or three days. This is evidence indicat-
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. A.S. ENTERPRISES IMUKHAJUJ, J.) 793

ing propensity of its not being marketed. It is good evidence to come to A
this conclusion that it would be unlikely to be marketable as it was
highly unstable. There was evidence as noted by the Tribunal that it
has not been marketed by anyone. There is also an admission of the
Superintendent of the appellant that no enquiry whatsoever was con-
~ ducted by the Department as to whether starch hydrolysate was "ever
\ marketed by anybody. It was pointed out by the revenue that even B
according to the respondent, it stored starch hydrolysate in tanks
before transporting it through pipes but according to the appellant, the
\ storage of starch hydrolysate was only for a period of a few hours only
\as a step in the process of transfer thereof to sorbitol. It, therefore,
appears to us that there was substantial evidence that having regard to
l the nature of the goods that this was unlikely that the goods in ques- c
' /'· tion were marketable. This should be judged in the background of the
evidence that the goods have not been marketed in a pregmatic man-
ner. All this again would have to be judged in the light of the fact that
revenue has not adduced any evidence whatsoever though asked to do
so. It was pointed out that if the Department was to charge duty of
excise on this starch hydrolysate as one form of glucose it would be the D
burden on the Department to establish that starch hydrolysate was not
merely marketable but was being marketed as glucose in some form.
·--', This would be so since what is liable for duty under item 1-E is glucose
1 • in any form and, therefore, in order to demand duty under that sec-
tion, the;Department must establish that the product on which duty
was demanded was known in the market as glucose in one form or the E

- other. There .is no such evidence as observed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal noted and, in our opinion, rightly that revenue cannot be said
to have discharged its burden of .istablishing that by applying the
\ process of hydrolysis to starch for production of starch hydrolysate the
• \_respondent manufacturers any excisable goods in the sense ~f being
goods known in the market and being marketed or marketable. Our F
attention was drawn to the affidavit ofSbri P.O. Khander, Chemist,
-it. who was a Food Technologist and was holding a degree of B.Sc.
(Chemistry). He was carrying on business of dealing in glucose. He
stated in his affidavit as follows:

.'' 14. I have been ~he starch hydrolysate made by Sarabha\ / G
M. Chemicals. It is comRletely hydrolysed starch. If1
appears as aqueous syrup containing about 66-71 % reduc-
ing sugars expressed as Dextrose. It is neither glucose or
dextrose in any form nor glucose in liquid state nor liquid
glucose. In order to find out the market for completely
hydrolysed starch as is made in Sarabhai M. Chemicals, at H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] 3 S.C.R.

their instance, I had made trade inquiries. However, there
A
is no market for such substance. Since it can act only as an
intermediate product for the manufacture of Sorbitol. Dex-
trose or Glucose and Fructose and every manufacturer of
Glucose, Dextrose, Sorbitol and Fructose would have his
own plant for hydrolysing starch, it is commercially not a
8 viable proposition both the manufacturers of Glucose,
Dextrose, Sorbitol or Fructose or the perwns undertaking
the process of hydrolysing starch either to purchase com-
pletely hydrolysed starch from the market or sell or under-
take process of hydrolysing starch for the purpose of sale in )
the market, because at lower concentration, stkch which ti'
completely hydrolysed would start fermenting and decom-
c posing. At higher concentration, it would start crystallising )
out within two or three days."

This affidavit evidence .remains uncontradicted. Shri Ganguly,
however, drew our attention to an order of the Tribunal in Mis. Anil
D Starch Products Ltd., Ahmedabad v. The Collector of Central Excise,
Ahmedabad being Appeal No. ED(SB)(T) 1534/81-D arising out of
the Revision Order No. 820/81. He referred to the observations at
page 117 of the Paper Book which dealt with the evidence of one Shri ·
Khabholja, where, according to Shri Ganguly, the Tribunal came to a ';-·
different conclusion. But the Tribunal in that case relied on the deci-
B sion of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India v.
Union Carbide India Ltd., (1978] ELT 1. There the Allahabad High
Court held that things would be nevertheless goods even these did not
have a general market, where they can be easily bought and sold. The
High Court hold that the fact that products might 1_10t be known to the ,
general public or to the traders in general would not change the posi- f •
p tion and therefore the test did not appear to be sound. This decision of ~
the Allahabad High Court which was relied upon by the Tribunal was
set aside by this Court in Appeal in the case of Union Carbide India
Ltd. v. Union of India & On. (supra). In view of the test laid down
and in view of the evidence discussed, it is difficult to sustain the order
of the Tribunal. In this connection, it appears that there was no market
0 enquiry by the Revenue. Reference may be made to the cross-
examination of Shri Shukla, Superintendent (Central Excise) by Shri ~.
Nanawati as appears at pj>. 235-237 of the present paper book. In view
of the fact that there was positive evidence that starch hydrolysate was
never marketed and in view of further fact that in the light of the
nature of the goods being highly unstable, it is. highly improbable that
H the goods were capable of being marketed and there being in splti: of
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. A.S. ENTERPRISES [MUKHARJI. J.] 795

the opportunities, no evidence produced at all that the goods, in fact, A
were capable of being marketable, in our opinion, it must be held as
did the Tribunal that the starch hydrolysate were not dutiable under
the Act.

,~· In the premises, the revenue has failed to discharge its onus to
B
1 prove that starch hydrolysate was dutiable. In the premises, (he Tri-
bunal cannot be said to have committed any error. The appeal must,
therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and the
. circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no orders as to
\_costs. '

R.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

-