Distinct product classification governs exemption: bagasse was dutiable, and the time-bar objection also failed.

Bagasse was treated as a distinct manufactured product with separate name, character and use, so it was not intermediate goods or a component part of other goods produced in the factory. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 77/75 was unavailable and duty was payable under Notification No. 118/75, supporting the Revenue's view on dutiability. The time-bar objection also failed because no approval by the proper officer was established to treat bagasse as non-excisable. The Assistant Collector's determination on dutiability was therefore affirmed and the order-in-appeal modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether bagasse manufactured and used within the factory was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 77/75 or was liable to duty under Notification No. 118/75; (ii) whether the demand was barred by time.

Issue (i): whether bagasse manufactured and used within the factory was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 77/75 or was liable to duty under Notification No. 118/75.

Analysis: Bagasse was found to be a distinct product with a separate name, character and use. It was treated as a finished product manufactured by the assessee with an independent identity and could not be regarded as intermediate goods or component parts of any other goods produced in the factory. On that basis, Notification No. 77/75 was held inapplicable, and the applicable notification was Notification No. 118/75 dated 30-4-75.

Conclusion: The concession under Notification No. 77/75 was not available, and the view of the Assistant Collector on dutiability of bagasse was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by time.

Analysis: The assessee failed to establish any approval by the proper officer that the bagasse was non-excisable. The objection based on time-bar was not accepted, and the assessment and valuation objections were treated as already correctly dealt with by the Assistant Collector.

Conclusion: The demand was not held to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order-in-appeal was modified and the Assistant Collector's determination on the dutiability of bagasse was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A product having a distinct name, character and use is a manufactured finished product, and where it is neither intermediate goods nor component parts of other goods, a concessional exemption notification meant for such inputs does not apply.

---