Marketability and distinct identity made resin coated sand excisable, while absence of suppression limited demand to the normal period.

Resin coated sand was treated as a manufactured excisable product because it acquired a distinct name, character and use from ordinary sand, and marketability was established from the record; actual sale was not required. The Tribunal held the proper classification to be Heading 6807.00 rather than Heading 3801.90, and duty was therefore sustainable on the correct tariff entry. On limitation, there was no sufficient basis to invoke the extended period because suppression or any positive act was not shown; the demand was confined to the normal six-month period. The absence of penalty also supported the finding that extended limitation was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether resin coated sand constituted manufacture of a new excisable commodity and, if so, the correct tariff classification. (ii) Whether the duty demand was confined to the normal period of limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether resin coated sand constituted manufacture of a new excisable commodity and, if so, the correct tariff classification.

Analysis: The production of resin coated sand resulted in a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use from ordinary sand. Marketability was established from the material on record, including technical literature indicating commercial sand-coaters and the fact that the product was stored in bins after manufacture. Actual sale was not necessary for excisability. The correct classification was not the one adopted in the impugned order, and the product was more appropriately classifiable under Heading 6807.00. The demand could be sustained on the correct classification because the Tribunal could mould the relief to the legally proper tariff entry.

Conclusion: Resin coated sand was held to be excisable as a manufactured product, and duty was held payable under Heading 6807.00, not Heading 3801.90.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was confined to the normal period of limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no sufficient basis to attribute suppression or any positive act warranting the extended limitation period. Since the product had not been assessed to duty earlier and the circumstances did not justify invocation of the longer period, the demand could stand only for the normal six-month period. The absence of penalty was treated as supporting the assessee's case on absence of mens rea.

Conclusion: The demand was held time-barred beyond six months and was restricted to the normal limitation period.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of limiting the demand to the normal period, while the finding of excisability and the proper tariff classification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A captively consumed intermediate product is dutiable if it is marketable and has a distinct name, character and use, and the extended limitation period requires facts establishing suppression or similar conduct beyond mere inaction.

---