Manufactured scrap glass was held excisable, classified under residuary and then specific tariff entries, with duty limited by normal limitation.

Scrap glass known as Bhagar, arising in the course of manufacture and commercially bought and sold for substantial value, was treated as manufactured excisable goods rather than refuse or rubbish. In the absence of a specific scrap-glass entry before 1-3-1979, it fell under the residuary tariff item, and after the amendment introducing glass in Item 23-A(4), it fell under that specific entry. The duty demand was confined to the normal six-month limitation because the show-cause notices did not invoke the extended period, while one matter was remanded for factual determination on whether the goods had been purchased from others rather than manufactured.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether broken glass known as Bhagar was a manufactured product and excisable goods, and its proper tariff classification; (ii) whether the Department's demand for past duty was barred by limitation; (iii) whether one appeal required remand because the material was allegedly purchased and not manufactured by the respondents.

Issue (i): whether broken glass known as Bhagar was a manufactured product and excisable goods, and its proper tariff classification.

Analysis: The material was found to be scrap glass arising in the course of manufacture, distinct from its raw materials, and was regularly bought and sold at substantial value. Applying the principles governing manufacture and goods, the material was held to be a manufactured item and not refuse, scum, or rubbish. Since no specific scrap-glass entry existed before 1-3-1979, the residuary tariff entry applied; after the amendment introducing glass in Item 23-A(4), the material fell within that specific entry.

Conclusion: Bhagar was excisable goods. It was classifiable under Item 68 up to 28-2-1979 and under Item 23-A(4) from 1-3-1979. This issue was answered in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the Department's demand for past duty was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The longer limitation could not be invoked because the show-cause notices did not specifically allege facts attracting the extended period or invoke the relevant proviso. In the absence of such invocation, only the normal limitation period was available for recovery.

Conclusion: The demand for past duty was restricted to the normal limitation period of six months. This issue was answered in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): whether one appeal required remand because the material was allegedly purchased and not manufactured by the respondents.

Analysis: The plea that the goods in that matter were trade goods purchased from others had not been examined by the appellate authority and required factual determination at the first appellate stage.

Conclusion: That appeal was remanded for fresh decision on the question whether the material had been purchased and was not of the respondents' manufacture. This issue was answered in favour of the respondents to the extent of remand.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld excisability and tariff classification of Bhagar in principle, limited the duty recovery to the normal period of limitation, and sent back one matter for fresh consideration on the separate factual plea of purchase from others.

Ratio Decidendi: Scrap or residual material arising in manufacture, if it is commercially known, bought and sold, and has substantial value, can constitute manufactured excisable goods and, absent a specific entry, falls under the residuary tariff item until a specific entry is introduced.

---