Bitumen polymer mixing is not excisable manufacture when no distinct marketable product emerges, and limitation fails too.

Mechanical mixing of a small quantity of polymer with duty-paid bitumen, used immediately for road construction and kept under hot stirring, did not create a new commercially distinct or marketable product. The material retained the character of bitumen, so the process was held not to amount to excisable manufacture and no central excise duty was payable. On demand and penalties, the record showed a bona fide dispute on taxability, supported by contrary departmental views and a circular, so invocation of the extended period was unjustified and penalties could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Polymer Modified Bitumen manufactured at site by mixing bitumen with polymer amounts to excisable manufacture. (ii) Whether the demand and penalties were sustainable, including on limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Polymer Modified Bitumen manufactured at site by mixing bitumen with polymer amounts to excisable manufacture.

Analysis: The product was prepared by mechanical mixing of a small quantity of polymer with duty-paid bitumen and, on the facts accepted, the modified material retained the character of bitumen. The product was intended for immediate use in road construction, required hot storage with continuous stirring, and was not shown to be a marketable commodity capable of ordinary sale. The reasoning also accepted that mere improvement in quality or change in grade does not by itself establish manufacture when no new commercially distinct product emerges.

Conclusion: The process did not result in a marketable excisable product and was not liable to central excise duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand and penalties were sustainable, including on limitation.

Analysis: The record showed a bona fide difference of opinion on taxability, supported by contrary views of other Commissioners and by the understanding under the departmental circular. In these circumstances, invocation of the extended period was held to be unjustified, and the foundation for penalties also failed.

Conclusion: The demand, extended limitation, and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A process that merely improves the quality or grade of duty-paid bitumen, without producing a distinct marketable commodity, does not amount to excisable manufacture.

---