Manufacture by assembly of components and extended limitation upheld, with company penalty reduced and director penalty set aside.

Assembling supplied components of a water purification and filtration system on a base frame was treated as manufacture because the finished unit emerged as a commercially distinct product with a separate identity, character and use. The non-disclosure of the activity to the department supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and a legal opinion alone did not negate suppression where no prior Tribunal ruling established a bona fide belief. Penalty on the company was sustained, subject to reduction in quantum, but the director's penalty was set aside for lack of material showing personal knowledge of the goods' liability to confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assembling the supplied components of a water purification and filtration system on a base frame amounted to manufacture. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression of facts. (iii) Whether penalty was imposable on the company and its director.

Issue (i): Whether assembling the supplied components of a water purification and filtration system on a base frame amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: Manufacture under excise law requires emergence of a new and different article having a distinct name, character or use. The supplied items were assembled into different variants of a water purification and filtration system, and the end product was commercially distinct from the individual components. The process was not a mere fixing or mounting exercise, but resulted in a complete system capable of independent commercial identity.

Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The manufacture of the impugned goods was not disclosed to the department. The existence of a legal opinion did not by itself negate suppression where the activity remained unreported and no supporting prior Tribunal decision was shown to justify a bona fide belief. In these circumstances, the ingredients for invoking the extended period were satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was imposable on the company and its director.

Analysis: Once manufacture and suppression were established, penalty on the company was justified, though the quantum required reduction. As regards the director, there was no material showing personal knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, which was necessary for fastening liability under the relevant penal provision.

Conclusion: Penalty on the company was upheld with reduction, while penalty on the director was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the company's penal liability were sustained, the penalty amount was reduced, and the director was absolved of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where assembly of components produces a commercially distinct product, the process amounts to manufacture; non-disclosure of such activity justifies invocation of the extended period; and personal knowledge is required to impose penalty on an individual under the confiscation-related penal provision.

---