Marketable mother yarn is excisable even when captively processed; extended limitation fails without proved suppression.

Mother yarn or multi-filament yarn was treated as a separately identifiable, marketable product within the tariff description and therefore excisable even when captively used for splitting. The exemption for split yarn applied only where duty had already been paid on the mother yarn. The longer limitation period was not available because departmental knowledge and records negated suppression, so time-barred demands were excluded. Separate demands for waste, textured yarn, short-accounted goods, DGTD discrepancy, samples, and non-workable mother yarn were either rejected for want of evidence, held time-barred, or remanded for factual verification. Confiscation of unaccounted seized goods was upheld, but the personal penalty was set aside for absence of deliberate evasion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mother yarn or multi-filament yarn was dutiable excisable goods and whether its removal for splitting attracted duty under the Central Excise law. (ii) Whether the demands raised beyond six months were barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the separate demands relating to waste, samples, non-workable mother yarn, textured yarn, short-accounted goods, and the DGTD discrepancy were sustainable. (iv) Whether the confiscation-related appropriation and penalty in the seizure matter were valid.

Issue (i): Whether mother yarn or multi-filament yarn was dutiable excisable goods and whether its removal for splitting attracted duty under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The tariff entry covered man-made filament yarn, and the exemption notification was read as recognising mother yarn as a dutiable article while exempting split yarn only if duty had already been paid on mother yarn. The material was treated as marketable and commercially identifiable, supported by the ISI glossary and by instances of actual clearance on payment of duty. Captive use did not negate excisability. Since mother yarn and split yarn were treated as distinct commercial products, removal of mother yarn to the splitting section was treated as removal for purposes of the excise rules.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and mother yarn or multi-filament yarn was held dutiable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands raised beyond six months were barred by limitation.

Analysis: For the relevant periods, the show cause notices extended beyond six months. The record showed departmental knowledge of the manufacturing process, physical control, checked records, and correspondence concerning the very issue in dispute. In these circumstances, suppression was not established for the extended period. The notice invoking the longer period was therefore not sustainable to the extent it covered time-barred demands.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the time-barred portion of the demand was held not recoverable.

Issue (iii): Whether the separate demands relating to waste, samples, non-workable mother yarn, textured yarn, short-accounted goods, and the DGTD discrepancy were sustainable.

Analysis: The demand relating to waste was held time-barred. The demand on textured yarn was rejected because the applicable exemption and earlier binding decisions covered that clearance. The demands based on short-accounted goods and the DGTD discrepancy were not supported by adequate evidence and were not accepted. The demand on non-workable mother yarn required factual verification from statutory records and was remanded for re-determination. The demand on samples was directed to be reconsidered with the claimed exemption.

Conclusion: The issue was partly in favour of the assessee and partly remanded for fresh verification.

Issue (iv): Whether the confiscation-related appropriation and penalty in the seizure matter were valid.

Analysis: The seized cartons were found in an unauthorised place and unaccounted, and confiscation was upheld because the goods were treated as dutiable and removed contrary to the rules. However, the surrounding correspondence and representations on the dutiability question showed absence of deliberate evasion, so the personal penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: The confiscation-related finding was upheld, but the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed only to the extent of setting aside or restricting several demands, while the core holding that mother yarn or multi-filament yarn was dutiable remained intact; the matter was also sent back on limited factual aspects for re-determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Mother yarn or multi-filament yarn, being a separately identifiable and marketable commercial product falling within the tariff description, is excisable even when captively consumed for further processing, and limitation cannot be extended in the absence of proved suppression.

---