Intermediate product in exempt acrylic sheets manufacture does not defeat exemption; departmental awareness also negates suppression.

Departmental awareness of the manufacturing process defeated the allegation of suppression, so invocation of the extended limitation period was not justified. The record showed that the authorities knew methyl methacrylate monomer arose during manufacture of acrylic plastic sheets from duty-paid scrap, and there was no material suppression or misdeclaration. The emergence of that monomer as an intermediate product did not, by itself, disqualify the final acrylic plastic sheets from the exemption notification. On that reasoning, the demand and penal consequences were unsustainable, and the exempt status of the final product was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the allegation of suppression of facts was made out; (ii) whether methyl methacrylate monomer, arising as an intermediate product during manufacture of acrylic plastic sheets from duty-paid scrap, was dutiable and whether the exemption for acrylic plastic sheets was available.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the allegation of suppression of facts was made out.

Analysis: The declarations and departmental correspondence showed that the Department was aware of the manufacture of methyl methacrylate monomer as part of the appellants' manufacturing process. The material on record did not support the finding that the appellants had withheld the existence of the intermediate product or misdeclared their activity so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression failed and the demand was not sustainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether methyl methacrylate monomer, arising as an intermediate product during manufacture of acrylic plastic sheets from duty-paid scrap, was dutiable and whether the exemption for acrylic plastic sheets was available.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered acrylic plastic sheets produced out of scrap of plastics and methyl methacrylate monomer. The fact that the monomer arose at an intermediate stage did not defeat the exemption for the final product. The emergence of an intermediate product in the course of manufacture from duty-paid scrap did not, by itself, take the final acrylic plastic sheets outside the exemption. The reasoning adopted in the cited precedent and the administrative clarification supported this view.

Conclusion: The intermediate monomer did not attract a contrary result, and the acrylic plastic sheets remained exempt.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penal consequences were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exempted acrylic plastic sheets are manufactured from duty-paid scrap through an intermediate monomer stage, the emergence of the intermediate product does not by itself defeat the exemption, and departmental awareness of the process negates suppression for extended limitation.

---