Sodium bichromate liquor is excisable, and differential duty can be raised on provisional self-removal figures without fresh notice.

Sodium bichromate liquor was treated as excisable under Tariff Item 14AA(1) because excise attaches when manufacture produces goods answering the tariff description, even if the product is an intermediate stage, used captively, or differs in concentration from crystalline form. The court also upheld the differential duty demand without a fresh show-cause notice, since the assessment was provisional under the self-removal procedure and the demand was based on the assessee's own revised cost particulars rather than a completed assessment under Rule 10.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sodium bichromate liquor falls within Tariff Item 14AA(1) so as to attract excise duty; (ii) Whether the differential duty could be demanded without issuing a fresh opportunity to show cause.

Issue (i): Whether sodium bichromate liquor falls within Tariff Item 14AA(1) so as to attract excise duty.

Analysis: The relevant tariff entry used the expression "sodium bichromate" and not merely crystals. Excise duty attaches to manufacture of goods answering the tariff description, and the decisive factor is whether a new substance answering that description has come into existence. The fact that the product is an intermediate stage, is used for captive consumption, is not marketed in that form, or differs in concentration from the crystalline form does not take it outside the charging provision. The record also showed that sodium bichromate liquor was in fact sold in that form and that part of it was further processed into crystals for sale.

Conclusion: Sodium bichromate liquor was held to be excisable under Tariff Item 14AA(1), against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential duty could be demanded without issuing a fresh opportunity to show cause.

Analysis: Under the self-removal procedure, the assessee furnished cost particulars and the department made only a provisional or tentative assessment on that basis. The later demand for differential duty was founded on the revised cost particulars and did not depend on a completed assessment under Rule 10. Since the demand was consistent with the assessee's own returns and figures, no prior show-cause opportunity was necessary in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty without a fresh show-cause notice was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because both the excisability of sodium bichromate liquor and the demand for differential duty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty is attracted when manufacture brings into existence goods answering the tariff description, regardless of whether the product is an intermediate stage, is captively consumed, or is sold in that form, and a differential demand based on provisional self-removal assessment may be raised without a fresh show-cause notice where it rests on the assessee's own cost data.

---