Marketable waste arising in manufacture is dutiable, and undisclosed duty liability can attract extended limitation.

Spent sulphuric acid arising in manufacture was treated as dutiable waste under Rule 57F(4)(a) because it was marketable, sold regularly to industrial consumers, and not mere unmarketable refuse; pleas under Rule 57D(1) and Notification No. 170/65 were rejected. The extended limitation under Rule 57I read with Section 11A was available where duty liability was not disclosed until pointed out by the Department, and later payment did not defeat limitation. On penalty, however, ready compliance after detection was accepted as reasonable cause, so penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether spent sulphuric acid, arising in the course of manufacture and sold to industrial consumers, was liable to duty under Rule 57F(4)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. (ii) Whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation under Rule 57I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (iii) Whether penalty was justified.

Issue (i): Whether spent sulphuric acid, arising in the course of manufacture and sold to industrial consumers, was liable to duty under Rule 57F(4)(a) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Rule 57F(4)(a) permits removal of waste arising from processing of inputs on payment of duty as if such waste were manufactured in the factory. The material in question arose after use of duty-paid sulphuric acid in manufacture, was sold periodically under contracts, and had a regular market with industrial users. In the light of the Supreme Court guidance on when refuse is merely rubbish and when it is marketable goods, the material was treated as goods in its own right and not as unmarketable refuse. The pleas based on Rule 57D(1) and Notification No. 170/65 were rejected.

Conclusion: The duty demand on spent sulphuric acid under Rule 57F(4)(a) was justified and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation under Rule 57I read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The clearances had been made without payment of duty on the assessee's own understanding, and the particulars were not disclosed until the Department pointed out the duty liability. The conduct showed that the assessee had not made the relevant disclosure before the Department came to know of the matter. The subsequent payment on being pointed out did not negate the applicability of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was available to the Department and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was justified.

Analysis: Although duty and limitation were upheld, the assessee's ready compliance after the liability was pointed out constituted reasonable cause for relief from penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and this issue was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and limitation finding were sustained, but the penalty was deleted, so the impugned order stood modified only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A material arising in manufacture is dutiable as waste under Rule 57F(4)(a) when it is marketable and sold as goods, and the extended limitation may be invoked where duty liability was not disclosed until pointed out by the Department.

---