Processed cotton fabrics cannot face a fresh excise levy, and short levy recovery must follow the specific limitation rule.

Processed cotton fabrics that were already manufactured and duty-paid in grey form could not be subjected to a fresh excise demand merely because they were later bleached, dyed or printed by an independent processor. The text explains that, under the excise charging scheme, duty is collected once from the manufacturer, and any short levy, if any, must be recovered from the original manufacturer rather than a subsequent processor. It also states that rule 10, not the residuary rule 10A, governed recovery of short levy arising from mistake or misclassification, so notices issued under rule 10A were invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cotton fabrics processed by an independent processor, when already manufactured and duty-paid in grey form, could be reassessed and subjected to a fresh demand as goods falling under sub-item (5) of Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) Whether demands for alleged short levy could validly be raised under rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of rule 10.

Issue (i): Whether cotton fabrics processed by an independent processor, when already manufactured and duty-paid in grey form, could be reassessed and subjected to a fresh demand as goods falling under sub-item (5) of Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The charging scheme under section 3 is directed to excisable goods specified in the First Schedule and contemplates collection of duty once from the manufacturer on removal from the licensed premises. Item 19, unlike the sub-items dealing with superfine, fine, medium and coarse fabrics where notifications created graded classifications and credit for duty already paid, contained no such sub-classification for sub-item (5). The processed fabrics remained the same goods, and the absence of a separate staged levy for sub-item (5) meant that duty could not be recovered again from an independent processor or subsequent dealer merely because the fabrics had been bleached, dyed or printed. Any short levy, if at all, had to be recovered from the original manufacturer.

Conclusion: The reassessment and fresh demand against the petitioner were unauthorized and illegal, and the demand could not be sustained against the independent processor.

Issue (ii): Whether demands for alleged short levy could validly be raised under rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of rule 10.

Analysis: Rule 10 specifically governed recovery of duties short-levied through mistake, inadvertence, error or misconstruction and required a demand within the prescribed period. Rule 10A was only residuary and could not be invoked where rule 10 squarely applied. Since the impugned demands arose from an alleged short levy on the basis of a mistaken classification, the matter fell within rule 10, and resort to rule 10A merely to avoid the period of limitation was impermissible.

Conclusion: The notices issued under rule 10A were invalid and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The reassessments and demand notices were quashed as the excise authorities could not recover the alleged deficiency from the petitioner and had invoked an inapplicable procedural provision.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory scheme authorizing repeated levy on the same excisable goods, duty short-levied on processed fabrics can be recovered only from the original manufacturer under the specific recovery rule applicable to short levy, and the residuary recovery provision cannot be used to bypass that rule.

---