Holding

Sticks of cigarettes removed for quality‑control testing are considered manufactured, marketable goods and are liable to excise duty, and in the absence of proof of destruction, duty applies to the whole quantity sent for testing.

Summary

I.T.C. Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with show‑cause notices for removing 20 sticks from each machine daily as samples for quality‑control testing, without paying excise duty. The company argued that excise duty should not apply because the cigarettes were not yet packed, a step it claimed was part of manufacture, and that some sticks were destroyed during testing. The Revenue contended that manufacture is complete when tobacco is formed into sticks, which are marketable, and that packing is only ancillary to sale. The Supreme Court held that sticks of cigarettes are marketable goods and manufacture is complete at the stick stage, making them liable to excise duty; it also found no evidence of destruction, so duty was payable on the entire quantity sent for testing. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether cigarettes removed for quality‑control testing within the factory are deemed manufactured goods liable to excise duty under the Central Excise Act.
Whether excise duty is payable on cigarettes destroyed during the testing process.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 2(d), s. 2(t), s. 3(1)(a)
Central Excise Rules, 1944s. Rule 93

Subjects

excise dutymanufacturemarketabilityquality control testingcigarettesCentral Excise ActRule 93destruction of goodspackingancillary process

Judgment

l.T.C. LTD. A
v.
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA
'
DECEMBER IO, 2002

[S.N. VARIAVA AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Central Excise Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 1944-Section 3/Rule
93-Excise dutj-On samples of cigarettes required for quality control test-
Held, liable to excise duty, since the manufacture of the end product i.e. C
cigarette is completed before removal for test and is fit for consumption.

Appellant-Company a manufacturer of cigarette, was issued show
cause notices alleging therein that it had been clearing without payment
of excise duty 20 sticks of cigarettes from each cigarette making machine
in the cigarette making department on each working day as samples for D
test in their quality control laboratory within the factory premises, total
·quantity each day being 65 packets of cigarettes of each brand
manufactured in the factory; and that the company neither submitted any
classification .list nor maintained any account in respect of quantity of
cigarettes removed which was liable to excise duty. Appellant-company
contested the demand. E
Assessing authorities levied excise duty with penalty on the appellant-
company holding that manufacturing process in respect of cigarettes is
completed at the stage when they emerge in the form of sticks·of cigarettes
and excise duty under the provisions of Section 3 of Central Excise Act,
1944 on the manufai:ture or production of the final article, i.e., in the case F
of cigarette was attracted at that very stage even though collection was
deferred.until clearan\:e; and that the process of packing of cigarettes was
. not incidental or ancillary to manufacture but it was incidental or ancillary·
to the sale of the end products.
G
In appeal Tribunal held that excise duty is leviable but remitted the
matter to the assessing authorities for limited purpose of working out the
effective excise duty recoverable on disputed quantity of cigarettes.

In appeal to this Court appellant company contended that in terms
H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A of Rule 93 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 no exciseable tobacco products
can be delivered from any factory unless the same are made into separate
packets and enclosed in a wrapper bearing, inter :ilia, the name of the
factory and the licence number which can be done only after the
completion of testing and thus as the process of manufacture of cigarettes
B was not completed, no excise duty is leviable thereon. Alt~rnatively it was
contended that certain quantity of cigarettes is destroyed during the
process of testing whereupon no excise duty is leviable.

Respondent-Revenue contended that manufacture of cigarette within
the meaning of section 2(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is completed no
C sooner they are completed into sticks of cigarettes and the process of
packing into separate packets and wrapping the same is neither incidental
nor ancillary to the completion of manufacture of cigarette, but the same
may, at the highest, be incidental or ancillary to its sale; and that it is not
known as to whether any quantity of cigarette was at all destroyed during
the process of testing and if a·t all there was any destruction, what was its
D quantum as no account in this regard was either maintained or produced
either before the assessing authority or the Tribunal.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I. For the purposes of levy of excise duty, the test to be
E applied is whether the goods manufactured are marketable or not. In the
present case, the cigarette, which is the end product of tobacco, is fit for
consumption before the same is removed for test. Packing of the cigarette
cannot be said to be incidental or ancillary to the manufacturing process,
but the same may be incidental or ancillary to its sale only. In case it is
F laid down that packing of cigarette is incidental or ancillary to the
completion of manufactured products, the same may result into evasion
of excise duty as before packing the cigarettes the same may be regularly
supplied to each and every employee for his consumption without payment
of excise duty thereon. The definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(1)
very clearly includes process which is incidental or ancillary to the
G completion of manufactured product. Manufacture of cigarette is
completed when the same emerges in the form of sticks of cigarettes which
are sent to the laboratory for quality control test. Sticks of cigarettes can
be consumed and manufacture of the end-product, i.e., cigarette, which is
commercially known in the market as such, is completed before its removal
H for test and after testing only packing of the same, which is tiie
l.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 3
requirement of rule 93 of the rules, is done. Thus sticks of cigarette which A
are removed for the purpose of test in the quality control laboratory
located within the factory premises of the appellant-Company are liable
to excise duty. (10-G, H; 11-A, B-CI

Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, (1963) Supp. I SCR
586; Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547; Bhor B
Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (1989) 1SCC602 and Union of India v. Delhi Cloth
& General Mills Co. Ltd., 1997 (92) E.L.T. 315 (SC), relied on.

2. In view of the non-maintenance and non-production of accounts
in relation to the destruction of cigarette sticks during the course of testing, C
'> excise duty was leviable on the entire stock of cigarette sticks sent to the
laboratory for quality control test.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6402-6405
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.95 of the Central Excise D
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/
5875/91-D and E/522-524/92-D in F.O. Nos. 117-120 of 1995-D.

S. Ganesh, R. Sashidharan, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Ms. Sushma Sharma,
Ajay Aggarwal, Rajan Narain and Ms. Sampada Narang for the Appellant. E
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Nisha Bagchi,
K.C. Kaushik and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.N. AGRAWAL, J. The order impugned in these appeals was passed F
i by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal') in appeals preferred against the orders of assessing
authorities whereby excise duty was levied and penalty imposed.

The short facts are that four show cause notices were issued to the G
appellant-Company, which was manufacturer of cigarette, alleging therein
that it had been clearing without payment of excise duty 20 sticks of cigarette
from each cigarette making machine in the cigarette making department on
1
each working day as samples for test in their quality control laboratory within
the factory premises, total quantity each day being 65 packets of cigarettes
of each brand manufactured in the factory. It was further alleged that the H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A company neither submitted any classification list nor maintained any account
in respect of quantity of cigarettes removed, which was liable to excise duty.
Out of the aforesaid show cause notices, first show cause notice was issued
by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna on 25th July, 1990 and the appellant
company was required to pay excise duty to the tune of Rs. 65,45,630.32
besides penalty in relation to the period from March 1973 to April 1990
B under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder which was issued in case No. 6-
MP of 1991. Other three notices were issued in the months of January and
February, 1991 by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna, in relation
to period between May and December, 1990 in case Nos. E-522, E-523 and
C E-524 of 1992 and total amount of excise duty leviable upon the appellant
'·
company was Rs. 6,14,278.48 besides penalty.

The appellant company contested the demand on grounds, inter alia,
that no duty was leviable on samples of cigarettes drawn for test purposes in
the quality control laboratory within the factory since the process of
D manufacture of cigarettes is not completed until the same are packed as
packing is a process incidental or ancillary to the process of manufacture o[
cigarettes and packing of cigarettes is done after the samples sent are tested
in the laboratory. According to it, some quantity of cigarettes is destroyed in
the process of testing. The assessing authorities by two separate orders disposed
E of the proceedings. In one case, excise duty was levied to the tune of Rs.
65,45,630.32 and penalty to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs and in another case, Rs.
6,14,278.48 apart from penalty of Rs. 15,000.

The assessing authorities passed the orders after holding that the
manufacturing process in respect of the cigarettes is completed at the stage
F when they emerge in the form of sticks of cigarettes and excise duty under
the provisions of Section 3 of the Act on the manufacture or production of
the final article, i.e., in the case of cigarette, was attracted at that very stage ';
even though collection was deferred until clearance. It was further held that
the process of packing of cigarettes was not incidental or ancillary to
manufacture but it was incidental or ancillary to the sale of the end products.
G
Challenging orders passed by the assessing authorities, four separate
appeals were filed on behalf of the appellant company before the Tribunal
which have been disposed of by a common order whereby the Tribunal has
decided the question of law raised against the assessee holding that excise
H duty is leviable on the samples of cigarettes sent to the laboratory for the
I.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 5
purposes of test within the factory premises but remitted the matter to the A
assessing authorities for a limited purpose for working out the effective excise
duty recoverable on the disputed quantity of cigarettes. Hence these appeals.

Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the
appeals, submitted that in terms of rule 93 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), no excisable tobacco products can be B
de livered from any factory unless the same are made into separate packets
and enclosed in a wrapper bearing, inter alia, the name of the factory and the
licence number which can be done only after the completion of testing and
thus as the process of manufacture of cigarette was not completed, no excise
duty is leviable thereon. Alternatively, it was submitted that certain quantity C
of cigarette is destroyed during the process. of testing whereupon no excise
duty is leviable.

Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing
on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that manufacture
of cigarette within the meaning of Section 2(t) of the Act is completed no D
sooner they are converted into sticks of cigarettes and the process of packing
into separate packets and wrapping the same is neither incidental nor ancillary
to the completion of manufacture of cigarette, but the same may, at the
highest, be incidental or ancillary to its sale. Learned Additional Solicitor
General further submitted that it is not known as to whether any quantity of E
cigarette was at all destroyed during the process of testing and if at all there
was any destruction, what was its quantum as no account in this regard was
either maintained or produced either before the assessing authority or the
Tribunal.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, questions that F
fall for consideration of this Court are: -

I. Whether cigarettes removed for the purposes of tests in the quality
control laboratory situated within the factory premises could be
treated to be excisable goods manufactured and consequently
liable to payment of excise duty under the provisions of the Act. G
2. Whether excise duty is leviable on the cigarettes that are destroyed
during the process of testing in the laboratory.

In order to appreciate the points raised, it may be useful to refer to the
provisions of Sections 2(d), 2(t) and 3(I)(a) of the Act and rule 93 of the H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Rules which run thus:-
"S.2.- Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or comext, -

(d) "excisable goods" means goods specified in the First Schedule
B and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
(5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt;
(t) "manufacture" includes any process
(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured
product;
c
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the section or
Chapter notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff
. Act, 1985 (5) of 1986) as amounting to manufacture,
and the word "manufacturer" shall be construed accordingly and
D shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the
production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person
who engages in their production or manufacture on his own
account."
"S.3. Duties specified in the Schedule tO the Central Excise Tariff
E Act, 1985 to be levied. - (I) There shall be levied and collected in
such manner as may be prescribed, -
(a) a duty of excise, to be called the Central Value Added Tax
(CENVAT) on all excisable goods which are produced or
manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First
F Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)".
"R.93. Manufacture and disposal of excisable tobacco products.- No
exciseable tobacco products shall be delivered from any factory except
under the following conditions:-
(a) Such products shall be made into separate packets.
G
(b) Each such packet, whether retail or wholesale, shall be enclosed
by, and at the expense of, the manufacturer, in a wrapper or
other outer covering, and, unless exempted by the Central Board
of Excise and Customs, by general or special order, each such
packet, or the manufacturer's label affixed thereto, shall bear in
H clearly discernible characters, the following particulars -
I.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. [B.N. AGRAWAL,J.] 7
(i) the name of the factory or a distinguishing mark which may A
take the form of a special design whereby the origin of the
products can be traced;
.. (ii) the number of his licence in Form L4; and

(iii) the trade brand of the product, Specimens of all such B
wrappers, outer covering or labels shall be submitted to the
Collector for his approval before they are brought into use.

(c) An application for clearance in the proper form shall be delivered
to the officer-in-charge of the factory at least 12 hours (or such
other period as the Collector may in any particular case require C
or allow before it is intended to remove the goods:

Provided that where removals from a factory are frequent
and the manufacturer maintains a sufficient credit balance in his
account-current maintained under rule 9 for payment of duty, the
Assistant Collector may, on a request by the manufacturer permit, D
by an order in writing, removal of goods on presentation of a
gate-pass as prescribed under rule 52A, subject to the observance
of such procedure as may be prescribed in this regard by the
Collector.
(d) No cigars and cherrots mentioned in Heading No. 24.02 of the E
Schedule to the Central Tariff Act 1985 ( 5 of 1986) shall be
delivered from any factory unless

(I) they are put into packets containing 5, 10, 25, 50 or JOO
cigars or cheroots, as the case may be;

(2) each such packet consists of a wooden, tin or cardboard box F
opening only at the top or of a paper wrapper top completely
. closed on all sides and with all sides and with all outer edges
gummed down".

Excise duty is leviable under Section 3 of the Act on all excisable
goods which are produced or manufactured in India at the rates, set forth in G
the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred.
to as 'the Tariff Act'). The expression 'Excisable goods' has been defined
under Section 2(d) of the Act to mean goods specified in the First Schedule
and the Second Schedule appended to the Tariff Act as being subject to a
duty of excise. 'Tobacco' has been enumerated as excisable good as Item No. H
8 SUPREME COUR.T REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A I in Second Schedule to the Tariff Act. The expression manufacture' has
been defined under Section 2(t) of the Act to include any process incidental
or ancillary to the completion of a manuftictured product. Under rule 93 of
the Rules excisable tobacco products, which include cigarette, shall be
delivered from the factory after the products are made into separate packets
B after affixing manufacturer's label~~~ereon and wrapping in a wrapper or
other outer covering. ·:.~

According to Shri Ganesh, excisable goods contemplated by Section
3(l)(a) of the Act are those goods which are marketable inasmuch as the
cigarettes removed for the purposes of testing in the quality control laboratory
C situated within the factory premises are not marketable as the process of its
manufacture was not completed, the same having not been kept in packets as
required under rule 93 of the Rules.

The requirement of "marketability" has been evolved by a process of
judicial interpretation for which it would be necessary to refer to the relevant
D decisions hereinafter.

In the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, (1963]
Supp. I SCR 586, the respondent-Mills were engaged in the manufacture of
vegetable product known as 'Vanaspati'. Vanaspati was subject to duty. It
E was the common case of both the parties that for the purpose of manufacturing
vanaspati, the respondent-Mills purchased groundnut and 'til' oil from the
market and subjected them to different processes before applying
hydrogenation to produce vanaspati. The stand of the Union of India was that
in the course of manufacture of vanaspati, the respondent-Mills produced at
an intermediate stage what is known as ·refined oil' in the market and although
F the respondent may not sell it as such, still it being a marketable product, it
was liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 23 of the Schedule which levied
duty on "Vegetable, non-essential oils, all sorts, in or in relation to the
manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of
.power". This stand was negatived by this Court holding that there could be
no refined oil as known to the market without deodorisation. In other words,
G non-deodorised refined oil is not known to market whereas the 'refined oil'
obtained by the respondent at an intermediate stage of production of vanaspati
is not deodorised. The respondent, it was held, applied the process of
deodorisation only after hydrogenation. The Court relied upon the specification
by the Indian Standards Institution to hold that "without deodorisation, the
H oil is not 'refined oil' as is known to the consumers and the commercial
I.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. [B.N. AGRA WAL, J.] 9
community". 'Accordingly, it held that the 'refined oil' which was obtained A
by the respondent at an intermediate stage of production/manufacture of
vanaspati was not liable to duty. The ratio of this judgment is that inasmuch
as the refined oil' obtained by the respondent at an intermediate stage of
production ofvanaspati cannot be treated as 'refined oil' known to the market
and consumers because no refined oil is ever marketed unless it is deodorised, B
it is not goods' for the purpose of the Act. It was found as a fact that the
respondent did not deodorise the 'refined oil' at any stage; it applied the said
process only after hydrogenation.

In the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., v. Union of India, [1986] 2
SCC 547, the appellant-Company was engaged in the manufacture and sale C
of flashlights (torches). For that purpose, it used to purchase aluminium slugs
and produced aluminium cans or torch bodies at its factory by a process of
extrusion. The Superintendent of Central Excise called upon the appellant-
company to submit a price-list in respect of the aluminium cans for the
purposes of levying excise duty thereon.· While complying with the said
demand, the appellant protested that the said aluminium cans cannot be D
described as ·goods' for the purpose of levying excise duty inasmuch as they
are not marketable and that they are ptepared only for the purpose of flashlights
manufactured by the appellant. It was also submitted that preparation of
aluminium cans out of aluminium slugs did not amount to manufacture and
that aluminium cans are merely intermediate products in the manufacture of E
flashlights. The aluminium cans prepared by the appellant, it submitted, were
manufactured by it entirely for its own purposes, viz., for the manufacture of
flashlights. The aluminium cans at the point at which the excise duty was
sought to be levied were in a crude and elementary form incapable of being
employed in that State as components in flashlights. The cans had sharp
I uneven edges and before they could be used as a component in making the F
flashlight, these cans had to undergo various processes such as trimming,
threading and redrawing. After trimming, threading and redrawing, they were
reeded, beaded and anodised or painted. It is at that point that they became
distinct and complete components capable of being used as flashlight cans
for h_ousing battery cells and for having a bulb fitted thereto. On the said G
facts, it was held by this Court that the aluminium cans in their aforesaid
elementary and unfinished form were not capable of sale to a consumer and
hence not marketable nor were they ever marketed . This Court accepted the
affidavit filed by the appellant that the aluminium cans in that State are not
known to the market because the Revenue could not produce any material to
the contrary. The ratio of this decision is that the aluminium cans which were H
IO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A sought to be taxed were, in that State not marketable. They were not capable
of being sold to a consumer nor were they ever sold in that State.

In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CCE, [1989] I SCC 602, the
question that fell for consideration of this Court was whether the crude PVC
films manufactured by the appellant therein were 'goods' within the meaning
B of Section 3. The crude PVC films represented an intermediate product used
for captive consumption in manufacture of leather cloth, laminated jute
meetings and PVC tapes. It was found by the appellate collector on the
material produced by the appellants that crude PVC films were not marketable
products. The Revenue could not produce any material establishing the
C contrary. On thatbasis it was held by this Court that the crude PVC films are
not marketable and not being 'goods' known to market, they cannot be treated
as 'goods' for the purposes of Section 3. It was observed that marketability
is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable under the Schedule to the
Act. It was further observed that excise duty is leviable if the goods are
capable of being ~old, though its actual sale is not necessary.
D
In the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. ltd., "
(1997) 92 E.L.T. 315 (SC), reliance whereupon has been heavily placed on
behalf of the appellant-Company, question that had arisen was whether excise
duty was leviable on calcium carbide that was manufactured by the assessee-
E company not for its marketing, but for captive consumption, i.e., the same
used to be utilised further in the production of acetylene gas for being
marketed. On these facts, it was held that excise duty was not leviable on the
manufacture of calcium carbide which was manufactured only for the captive
consumption as one of the raw materials for production of acetylene gas and
the same was leviable on the end product, i.e., acetylene gas which was
F marketable. This decision cannot be of any avail to the appellant as the same
is clearly distinguishable. \

From a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it would be clear that for
the purposes of levy of excise duty, the test to be applied is whether the
G goods manufactured are marketable or not. In the present case, the cigarette,
which is the end product of tobacco, is fit for consumption before the same
is removed for test. Packing of the cigarette cannot be said to be incidental
or ancillary to the manufacturing process, but the same may be incidental or
ancillary to its sale only. In case it is laid down that packing of cigarette is
incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured products, the same
H may result into evasion of excise duty as before packing the cigarettes the
j

l.T.C. LTD. v. C.C.E. [B.N. AGRAWAL,J.] II
same may be regularly supplied to each and every employee for his A
consumption without payment of excise duty thereon. The definition of
'manufacture' under Section 2(f) very clearly includes process which is
incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product. Manufacture
of cigarette is completed when the same emerges in the form of sticks of
cigarettes which are sent to the laboratory for quality control test. Sticks of B
cigarettes can be consumed and manufacture of the end-product, i.e., cigarette,
which is commercially known in the market as such, is completed before its
removal for test and after testing only packing of the same, which is the
requirement of rule 93 of the Rules, is done. Thus, we hold that sticks of
cigarette which are removed for the purpose of test in the quality control
laboratory located within the factory premises of the appellant-Company are C
liable to excise duty.

Coming now to the second question, it may be stated that learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not dispute th~ proposition
that the quantity of cigarette sticks that is destroyed in the course of quality
control test is not liable to excise duty. He, however, submitted that no D
evidence wliatsoever was adduced on behalf of the appellant-Company either
before the assessing authorities or the Tribunal to show that any cigarette
.. stick was destroyed in tlie process of quality control test, much less cigarette
sticks of any particular quantity inasmuch as, undisputedly, for major period
no account at all was maintained and for some period, though account was E
maintained in relation to the quantity of cigarette sticks sent to the laboratory
for testing, but no account was maintained as to how much quantity was
destroyed during the process of testing. It was pointed out by learned
Additional Solicitor General that though in the show cause notice the appellant
-Company was specifically called upon to· show cause for non-maintenance
of account in relation to the sticks of cigarette sent for quality control test, F
but in spite of that it failed to produce any account whatsoever to show as
to how much quantity of cigarette sticks was sent for quality control test
during different periods, much less producing any account in relation to the
destruction of the cigarette sticks during the course of testing. At this stage,
Shri Ganesh submitted that the matter should be remitted either to the Tribunal G
or the assessing authority for affording opportunity to the appellant to produce
the accounts and then record a finding as to how many cigarette sticks were
destroyed during the course of testing. In our view, no useful purpose will
be served by remitting the matter on this question, firstly, because even
> according to the show cause reply filed by the appellant-Company before the
assessing authorities, it had not maintained any account in relation to the H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
j
A destruction of cigarette sticks during the course of quality control test and,
secondly, no reason was assigned for not producing any account either before
the assessing authority or before the Tribunal in spite of the fact that it was
clearly stated in the show cause notice that the appellant -Company was not
maintaining any such account. In view of the non-maintenance and non-
B production of accounts in relation to the destruction of cigarette sticks during
the course of testing, we are of the opinion that excise duty was leviable on
the entire stock of cigarette sticks sent to the laboratory for quality control
test.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals,
C which are accordingly dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.