Manufacturer identity and extended limitation in excise exemption disputes: corporate units were not separate manufacturers absent specific wording, and suppression was not shown.

Exemption notifications for T.I. 68 goods were construed by reference to clearances by or on behalf of the manufacturer, so units of a State public sector corporation functioning as parts of the corporation were not treated as independent manufacturers unless the exemption text specifically so provided. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked where the department had been consistently informed of the corporate structure and related declarations, accounts, and correspondence, because there was no wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore treated as time barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether each unit of a State public sector corporation could be treated as an independent manufacturer for the purpose of exemption notifications governing T.I. 68 goods. (ii) Whether the demand raised by invoking the extended period of limitation was time barred.

Issue (i): Whether each unit of a State public sector corporation could be treated as an independent manufacturer for the purpose of exemption notifications governing T.I. 68 goods.

Analysis: The exemption under the relevant notifications was linked to the clearances by or on behalf of the manufacturer. The units functioned as parts of the corporation, and the goods were manufactured for and on behalf of that corporation. The reasoning also drew support from later exemption language expressly treating each factory of a Government or State Industries Corporation separately only where a specific provision so provided.

Conclusion: The units could not be treated as independent manufacturers for the purpose of the exemption notifications.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised by invoking the extended period of limitation was time barred.

Analysis: The record showed that the department had been informed throughout that the unit was functioning under the corporation and had separate applications, declarations, accounts, and correspondence on the same basis. In these circumstances, there was no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the extended limitation could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was time barred.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Collector's order failed, the demand could not be sustained on limitation, and the proceedings ended with rejection of the appeals and dismissal of the cross-objection.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption schemes tied to the manufacturer's clearances, units of a public sector corporation are not automatically separate manufacturers; and the extended period of limitation is unavailable absent wilful suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

---