Limitation in excise demand defeated where no suppression or wilful misstatement was shown, leaving manufacture issue undecided.

Meal trays supplied with identifying cards were treated as branded goods because passengers associated the catering with the appellants as a whole, even though individual items were not separately marked. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable since the appellants were registered, openly carrying on catering operations, and the record did not show suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The manufacturing question, concerning whether assembling food items on a tray amounted to manufacture, was not decided on merits because the demands were already time-barred. The appeals succeeded on limitation, while the manufacture issue remained open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the meal trays supplied by the appellants were branded goods; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked; (iii) whether the activity of assembling food items on a tray amounted to manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether the meal trays supplied by the appellants were branded goods.

Analysis: The identifying card placed with the cutlery pack linked the meal supplied to the appellants in the perception of the passengers. The fact that individual items were not separately marked was not decisive where the catering was understood as being provided by the appellants as a whole. The facts were held to be comparable to the branded meal situation considered in the cited precedent.

Conclusion: The meal trays were treated as branded goods, and this contention of the appellants was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The appellants were already registered with the department and were openly engaged in catering operations, with some excisable items being regularly cleared on duty payment. On those facts, the record did not support suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be not invokable.

Issue (iii): Whether the activity of assembling food items on a tray amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The question was raised, but the adjudicating authority had not recorded a finding on it. The Tribunal noted that manufacture requires a change resulting in a new name, character, and use, yet it found no necessity to remand because the demands were already time-barred.

Conclusion: The issue of manufacture was left open.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the demands were barred by limitation, while the question of manufacture was not decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the extended period is not sustainable for want of suppression or wilful misstatement, the demand cannot survive even if another substantive issue remains undecided.

---