Consumable versus raw material distinction upheld; concessional excise benefit allowed and extended limitation period rejected.

Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA 117) used only in the sizing stage, and washed off before the yarn entered the next process, was treated as a consumable rather than a raw material remaining in the finished product. On that basis, the assessee remained eligible for concessional benefit under Notification No. 20/98-C.Ex. The demand was also held time-barred because the assessee had disclosed the material use and the department had knowledge of the facts, so suppression was not established and the extended period could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether polyvinyl alcohol (PVA 117) used in the sizing process was a raw material disentitling the assessee to the concessional benefit under Notification No. 20/98-C.Ex.; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable.

Issue (i): whether polyvinyl alcohol (PVA 117) used in the sizing process was a raw material disentitling the assessee to the concessional benefit under Notification No. 20/98-C.Ex.

Analysis: The material was found to be used only in the sizing stage to strengthen yarn for weaving and was washed off before the yarn was used in the subsequent process. On the technical literature and the cited textile references, the Court treated PVA as a consumable used in processing and not as an input remaining in the final product. The distinction between a raw material and a consumable was applied by testing whether the item remained embedded in the finished product.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the concessional benefit under Notification No. 20/98-C.Ex., and PVA 117 did not disqualify the claim.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the use of the material and the department was held to have knowledge of the relevant facts. In the absence of suppression of facts, the ingredients necessary to invoke the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be invoked.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on merits and on limitation, with consequential relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A substance used only during processing and washed away before the finished product emerges is a consumable, not a raw material, and in the absence of suppression of facts the extended period of limitation is unavailable.

---