Intermediate brass products not dutiable absent proof of distinct marketable excisable goods; captive exemption and limitation also applied.

Intermediate brass billets or rods arising during continuous extrusion and coiling were not proved to be distinct, marketable excisable goods, so no duty could be demanded on that basis. Captive-consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was available where the assessee had not taken Cenvat credit on inputs used for exempt clearances, even assuming such intermediate goods emerged. The demand was also time-barred because the Department already knew the manufacturing process, job-work activity and exemption claim through declarations and classification filings, and no suppression or misstatement was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged intermediate brass billets/rods emerging during manufacture of brass wire were excisable and liable to duty; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE for captively consumed intermediate goods; and (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the alleged intermediate brass billets/rods emerging during manufacture of brass wire were excisable and liable to duty.

Analysis: The alleged intermediate product was found to arise only during a continuous extrusion and coiling process and did not satisfy the description of bars or rods in Chapter 74, as it was not in uniform solid cross-section along its whole length. The product was also not shown to be marketable, and the Department failed to establish by evidence that a distinct excisable rod came into existence before conversion into wire in coil form.

Conclusion: The alleged intermediate brass billets/rods were not proved to be excisable goods and no duty could be demanded on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE for captively consumed intermediate goods.

Analysis: The assessee had not taken Cenvat credit on the inputs used for the exempted job-work clearances. The notification was held to extend to captive inputs or intermediate goods where the manufacturer discharged the obligation under Rule 6 by not availing credit on such inputs. On that basis, the exemption was held available to the alleged intermediate goods even assuming their emergence.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE.

Issue (iii): whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The manufacturing process, use of raw material, job-work activity, and exemption claim were already within the Department's knowledge through declarations and classification filings. No suppression or misstatement was established, and therefore the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was hit by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and consequential penalty were unsustainable on merits and on limitation, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An intermediate product is not dutiable unless the Department proves that it is a distinct, marketable excisable good; where no Cenvat credit is taken on inputs for exempted manufacture, captive-consumption exemption is available and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent suppression.

---