Commercial identity test governs exemption for manufactured goods, while known facts bar extended limitation.

Classification and exemption for manufactured goods were determined by their commercial identity and accepted market understanding, not merely by the description used by the manufacturer or the department. Applying that test, the goods were treated as mosaic tiles in the commercial sense and were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/2003. On limitation, registration with Central Excise, disclosure of the manufacturing process, and the department's prior knowledge of the relevant facts meant there was no basis for the extended period. The denial of exemption and invocation of the longer period were held unsustainable, and the demand was dropped on merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/2003; and (ii) whether invocation of the longer period was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/2003.

Analysis: The goods were examined in the light of their composition, manufacture, invoices, expert opinion and prior tribunal precedent on similar products. The deciding test applied was commercial understanding of the product, and not merely the name used by the manufacturer or the department. On the material before it, the goods were treated as mosaic tiles in the commercial sense and similar products had already been accepted as eligible for the same exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 10/2003, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the longer period was justified.

Analysis: The appellant had been registered with the Central Excise authorities and had disclosed the manufacturing process. The demand related to a period when no exemption notification was in force, and the show cause notice was issued much later. On those facts, there was no adequate basis to sustain the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the longer period was not justified, and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the demand dropped on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification and exemption for goods must be determined by their commercial identity and accepted market understanding, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked when the relevant facts were known to the department.

---