Manufacture by repacking of duty-paid yarn rejected; penalty also falls when the extended limitation period is unavailable.

Repacking of duty-paid yarn was treated as insufficient to constitute manufacture because the relevant Chapter Notes specifically listed the processes that amount to manufacture, and repacking was not among them; the phrase "any other process" was read in the context of the enumerated yarn-related processes. On that construction, mere repacking did not create a manufactured product, so the duty demand was unsustainable. Penalty also could not be independently sustained once the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable and the demand fell outside limitation. The stated ratio is that manufacture must fall within the statutory Chapter Notes, and penalty cannot survive where the duty demand is time-barred and the extended period is unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether repacking of duty-paid yarn amounted to manufacture; (ii) whether penalty could be sustained when the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable.

Issue (i): Whether repacking of duty-paid yarn amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The relevant Chapter Notes specifically enumerated the processes that would amount to manufacture in relation to the concerned yarn products. Repacking was not one of the specified processes, and the expression "any other process" was read in the context of the listed processes relating to the yarn itself. On that construction, mere repacking of yarn did not bring about manufacture.

Conclusion: Repacking of yarn did not amount to manufacture and the demand of duty was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be sustained when the extended period of limitation was held inapplicable.

Analysis: A finding had already been recorded that sufficient material had been placed before the Department and that the extended period was not invocable. Once the demand itself was outside limitation, penalty could not be independently sustained. The Tribunal also relied on the settled principle that penalty cannot survive where the extended limitation for the duty demand is not available.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld as set aside by the appellate authority and the penalty was annulled, resulting in relief to the assessee on the penalty issue and rejection of the Revenue's challenge to the demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only when it falls within the statutory Chapter Notes, and penalty cannot survive where the duty demand is barred by limitation and the extended period is unavailable.

---