Waste sweepings from manufacture are not skimmed milk powder for tariff classification; extended limitation also failed.

Floor sweepings and chamber sweepings generated in the manufacture of skimmed milk powder were treated as waste, not as finished skimmed milk powder for tariff classification, because they were collected and sold for cattle feed or other non-human use and did not satisfy the requirements of the edible product. On that basis, the duty demand under the cited heading was unsustainable. The note also records that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, as the record did not establish suppression or any other legally sufficient ground for extended demand, particularly in light of an earlier departmental clarification treating such sweepings as exempt under the old tariff.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether floor sweepings or chamber sweepings arising in the manufacture of skimmed milk powder were classifiable and dutiable as skimmed milk powder under the relevant tariff heading and sub-heading. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding duty on the goods.

Issue (i): Whether floor sweepings or chamber sweepings arising in the manufacture of skimmed milk powder were classifiable and dutiable as skimmed milk powder under the relevant tariff heading and sub-heading.

Analysis: The goods in dispute were found to be floor sweepings or chamber sweepings, collected and sold for cattle feed or other non-human consumption uses. Skimmed milk powder is an edible dairy product meant for human consumption and must satisfy the regulatory requirements applicable to such products. The tariff scheme also distinguished between skimmed milk powder for general use and other specified variants, and the sweepings could not be treated as standard skimmed milk powder merely because they were packed and sold.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable as skimmed milk powder under the cited tariff entry, and the duty demand on that basis was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding duty on the goods.

Analysis: The record showed an earlier departmental clarification that floor sweepings were exempt from duty under the old Central Excise Tariff, and the subsequent demand related to an extended period. In the absence of material justifying suppression or other grounds necessary to sustain extended limitation, invocation of the extended period was not warranted.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was rejected, the limitation objection succeeded, and the appeal was allowed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Waste or sweepings arising during manufacture cannot be treated as the finished edible product for tariff classification, and the extended period of limitation requires a legally sustainable foundation such as proved suppression.

---