Manufacture of filter bags from purchased cloth attracts excise, defeats exemption claims, and supports extended limitation and penalty.

Cutting, folding and stitching purchased polypropylene cloth into filter bags was treated as manufacture because it produced a distinct, marketable article with a separate commercial identity, making the bags excisable goods. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was unavailable because the bags were used in the filtration process rather than for repair or maintenance of machinery. The demand was held not to be time-barred since the assessee failed to disclose the manufacture of filter bags, amounting to wilful suppression and justifying the extended limitation period. Exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was also denied because the bags were treated as equipment rather than inputs. Penalty was sustained due to nondisclosure and related procedural lapses.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cutting and stitching purchased polypropylene cloth into filter bags amounted to manufacture and produced excisable goods; (ii) whether the goods were exempt under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. dated 24-4-1986; (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation; (iv) whether the goods qualified for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. dated 2-4-1986; and (v) whether penalty was justified.

Issue (i): Whether cutting and stitching purchased polypropylene cloth into filter bags amounted to manufacture and produced excisable goods.

Analysis: The cloth purchased from the market was cut, folded and stitched into a distinct article in the shape of a bag, used for filtration in sugar manufacture. The resulting article had a different commercial identity and was capable of being sold in the market. On these facts, the process created a new and marketable product.

Conclusion: Yes. The process amounted to manufacture and the filter bags were excisable goods, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were exempt under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. dated 24-4-1986.

Analysis: The notification applies to goods intended for use in repair and maintenance of machinery. The filter bags were not made for repair or maintenance but were used as part of the filtration arrangement in the manufacturing process. That use did not bring them within the notification.

Conclusion: No. The benefit of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was not available, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee did not disclose to the department that it was manufacturing filter bags from purchased cloth. Mere references to filter cloth in returns did not amount to disclosure of the manufacture of filter bags. The nondisclosure amounted to wilful suppression, permitting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: No. The demand was not time-barred, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the goods qualified for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. dated 2-4-1986.

Analysis: The notification excludes machines, machinery, plant and equipment from the definition of inputs. The filter bags were used in filtration equipment and were treated as equipment rather than inputs. They therefore fell within the exclusion in the explanation to the notification.

Conclusion: No. The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty was justified.

Analysis: The assessee failed to disclose the manufacture of filter bags, maintained no accounts for them and did not issue proper gate passes. In view of the suppression and procedural violations, the penalty could not be regarded as unwarranted.

Conclusion: Yes. The penalty was justified, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full because the filter bags were held to be manufactured excisable goods, no exemption applied, the demand survived limitation, and the penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Conversion of purchased cloth into a distinct, marketable filtration bag amounts to manufacture and excisable goods, and deliberate nondisclosure of such manufacture justifies extended limitation, denial of exemption and penalty.

---