Captive yarn duty forms part of fabric valuation, while short-levied duty recovery remains subject to limitation.

Duty paid on cotton yarn used captively in the manufacture of cotton fabrics under Rules 96V and 96W remained part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the special procedure for yarn used in the same factory did not displace the ordinary valuation rule. The valuation demand was therefore sustained against the assessee. Recovery of short-levied duty, however, was confined to the one-year limitation under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so demands relating to earlier periods were barred. The assessee obtained only partial relief on limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty paid on cotton yarn, when used captively in the manufacture of cotton fabrics under Rules 96V and 96W, was required to be included in the assessable value of cotton fabrics for levy of duty. (ii) Whether recovery of short-levied duty was barred for periods beyond the limitation prescribed under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty paid on cotton yarn, when used captively in the manufacture of cotton fabrics under Rules 96V and 96W, was required to be included in the assessable value of cotton fabrics for levy of duty.

Analysis: Rules 96V and 96W created only a special procedure for payment of duty where yarn manufactured in the same factory was used in the manufacture of fabrics. Those rules did not alter the normal principle of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Since duty paid on yarn ordinarily forms part of the value of the fabrics manufactured from it, the special procedure did not exempt such duty from inclusion in the assessable value.

Conclusion: The duty on cotton yarn was required to be included in the assessable value of cotton fabrics, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery of short-levied duty was barred for periods beyond the limitation prescribed under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The applicable limitation period for recovery of short-levied duty was one year. The show cause notices covered periods extending beyond one year from the relevant dates, and the demands relating to those earlier periods could not be recovered.

Conclusion: Recovery of duty for periods beyond the statutory limitation was barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand was sustained on the valuation issue, but recovery was restricted to the periods within limitation, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A special procedure for collection or payment of duty does not, by itself, displace the ordinary statutory rule for valuation, and recovery of short-levied duty remains subject to the prescribed limitation period.

---