Excisability of pump parts turns on manufacture, marketability, and strict application of exemption and limitation rules.

Manufactured parts of P.D. pumps were treated as excisable goods because goods made in India are dutiable under the Central Excise Act and marketability is satisfied where the goods are capable of being bought and sold. The claimed exemptions were rejected for the relevant period: Notification No. 57/75-C.E. was unavailable, Notification No. 281/86-C.E. did not apply because the goods were not used in the factory of manufacture or another factory of the same manufacturer, and eligibility under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was left for verification. Non-disclosure of manufacture and removal supported invocation of the extended period for suppression, while interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were confined to the post-insertion period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the parts of P.D. pumps manufactured and cleared by the State Irrigation Workshop were excisable goods liable to central excise duty, and whether the exemption notifications relied on by the assessee were available; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression and whether interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were applicable for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether the parts of P.D. pumps manufactured and cleared by the State Irrigation Workshop were excisable goods liable to central excise duty, and whether the exemption notifications relied on by the assessee were available.

Analysis: Goods manufactured in India are chargeable to duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, and liability is not excluded merely because the manufacturer is a State department. The parts were held to be marketable because they were capable of being bought and sold in the market, even if not actually sold by the workshop. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 57/75-C.E. was found unavailable for the relevant period, and Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was held inapplicable because the goods were not used in the factory of manufacture or another factory of the same manufacturer. The claim under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was left for verification by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The parts of P.D. pumps were held liable to central excise duty, and the assessee's exemption claims were rejected except to the extent that eligibility under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was remanded for reconsideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression and whether interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were applicable for the relevant period.

Analysis: The workshop had not disclosed the manufacture and removal of the excisable goods, and the non-disclosure supported invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). The existence of exemption notifications did not by itself establish bona fide belief. At the same time, interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were held not to apply to periods prior to their insertion on 28-09-1996, though they could be examined for clearances thereafter.

Conclusion: The extended period was held invocable, while Sections 11AB and 11AC were confined to the post-insertion period only.

Final Conclusion: The duty liability on the manufactured parts was affirmed, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the availability of the small-scale exemption and for recomputation of duty, interest, and penalty in accordance with the applicable period.

Ratio Decidendi: Excisability depends on manufacture and marketability, and exemption or penalty consequences must be tested strictly under the governing notification and statutory period applicable to the clearances in question.

---