Dyeing grey woollen yarn is manufacture; excise duty applies, but recovery is limited by the notice-period limitation.

Dyeing grey woollen yarn was held to amount to manufacture because it produced a commercially distinct article with a different name, character and marketability, making the dyed yarn excisable. The demand was limited by the limitation period in force on the date of the show cause notice, so recovery could extend only to the six months immediately preceding notice and was time-barred for the earlier period. The plea of double taxation failed because grey yarn and dyed yarn were treated as distinct goods, and proforma credit under Rule 56A was not granted for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dyeing of grey woollen yarn amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty on the dyed yarn; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained for the entire period covered by the notice or was confined by limitation; (iii) whether the demand was hit by double taxation or could be neutralised by proforma credit under Rule 56A.

Issue (i): Whether dyeing of grey woollen yarn amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty on the dyed yarn.

Analysis: The majority held that dyeing brings into existence a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and marketability from grey yarn. It relied on the accepted test that a process is manufacture when it creates something else having distinctive name, character and use, and treated the later Supreme Court exposition on dyeing as applicable to the process in question. The tariff notification and separate rate structure were treated as consistent with, though not determinative of, excisability.

Conclusion: Yes. Dyeing of grey woollen yarn amounted to manufacture and the dyed yarn was exigible to excise duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained for the entire period covered by the notice or was confined by limitation.

Analysis: The majority applied the principle that the limitation applicable is the one in force on the date of the show cause notice. Since the notice was issued when the shorter limitation period under Rule 10 was in force, recovery could not extend beyond that period. The demand therefore had to be restricted to the period immediately preceding the notice.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred for the earlier period and was sustainable only for six months prior to the notice.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was hit by double taxation or could be neutralised by proforma credit under Rule 56A.

Analysis: The majority held that there was no double taxation because grey yarn and dyed yarn were distinct goods taxed at different stages of manufacture. It further held that proforma credit could not be granted in appeal in the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedure under Rule 56A.

Conclusion: No. The demand was not vitiated by double taxation and Rule 56A relief was not granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of restricting the demand to the legally permissible period, and was otherwise rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture for excise purposes when it creates a commercially distinct product with a different name, character or use, and limitation for recovery follows the law in force on the date of the show cause notice.

---