Same tariff classification prevents a second excise levy on converted product; limitation and refund time were upheld.

An appellate filing was treated as within limitation because it was lodged within the statutory period counted from communication of the lower order and was covered by the applicable removal of difficulties order. On excise, acid slurry made from D.B.S.B. was held not to attract a fresh levy because both products fell under the same tariff item; conversion between them did not amount to manufacture of a new excisable product. The refund claim was also found to be within the prescribed time, so no further withholding or delay of refund was justified. The departmental challenge failed, and the cross-objection for further refund directions was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal was barred by limitation under the relevant appellate provision. (ii) Whether acid slurry manufactured out of D.B.S.B. was liable to fresh central excise duty when both products fell under the same tariff item and whether the refund claim was within time.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal was barred by limitation under the relevant appellate provision.

Analysis: The appeal was presented within the statutory period counted from communication of the lower appellate order, and it was also covered by the applicable removal of difficulties order governing the filing period.

Conclusion: The appeal was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether acid slurry manufactured out of D.B.S.B. was liable to fresh central excise duty when both products fell under the same tariff item and whether the refund claim was within time.

Analysis: Since D.B.S.B. and acid slurry were held classifiable under the same tariff item, conversion of one into the other did not amount to manufacture of a new excisable product for the purpose of a second levy. The refund claim was also accepted as having been made within the prescribed time, and the plea for withholding or further delaying refund was rejected.

Conclusion: No fresh duty was payable on acid slurry and the refund was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed in full, while the assessee's cross-objection seeking further directions on refund was also rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an intermediate or captively consumed product remains classifiable under the same tariff entry after conversion, no second duty can be levied absent manufacture of a new product; limitation for the appeal and refund must be tested strictly by the governing statutory period.

---