Exemption on duty-paid yarn applies despite an intermediate stage; disclosed claims also defeat extended limitation.

Concessional duty under the exemption notifications was available where duty-paid texturised yarn was the source input for dyed twisted yarn, even though an intermediate twisted yarn stage existed, because the exemption required manufacture out of duty-paid yarn and no Cenvat credit in the relevant process. The presence of an intermediate captive product did not break the chain of manufacture. On limitation, disclosure of the exemption claim in statutory records and absence of suppression or intent to evade duty meant the extended period could not be invoked. The duty demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional duty under the exemption notifications when the final dyed twisted yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturised yarn through an intermediate twisted yarn stage; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional duty under the exemption notifications when the final dyed twisted yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturised yarn through an intermediate twisted yarn stage.

Analysis: The exemption conditions required the product to be manufactured out of textured or draw-twisted yarn on which the appropriate duty had already been paid and that no Cenvat credit had been availed in the relevant process. The duty-paid texturised yarn was the starting raw material, while twisted yarn was only an intermediate captive product used in the manufacture of dyed twisted yarn. A product is treated as manufactured out of duty-paid material when that duty-paid material is the source input, even if an intermediate stage exists and no duty is paid at every stage.

Conclusion: The assessee satisfied the notification conditions and was entitled to the concessional rate of duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee had declared the availment of the exemption and made entries in the statutory records. A claim to exemption, by itself, does not amount to suppression or misrepresentation. In the absence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, the longer limitation period could not be applied.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the extended period was not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalties were unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid input is the starting raw material and a further intermediate stage does not break the chain of manufacture, the final product is regarded as manufactured out of duty-paid material for exemption purposes; a bona fide claim to exemption, disclosed in records, does not constitute suppression for invoking the extended period.

---