Limitation, tariff classification and penalty reduction shape duty dispute over printed man-made fabrics, with remand for abatement verification.

Continued clearances despite knowledge of duty liability defeated the plea of limitation, and a separate show-cause notice was unnecessary for finalising the RT 12 returns. Printed man-made fabrics fell within Tariff Item 22(1)(b) because the tariff covered fabrics subjected to processes including bleaching, dyeing and printing, and the reference to "any two or more" was only clarificatory. Redemption fine was sustained as not excessive, while penalty was reduced in view of mitigating circumstances. The question of abatement for duty already paid on later clearances was remitted for verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of additional excise duty was barred by limitation; (ii) whether printed man-made fabrics were liable to duty under Tariff Item 22(1)(b); (iii) whether redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and whether the penalty required reduction; and (iv) whether duty already paid on subsequently cleared goods required abatement from the demand.

Issue (i): whether the demand of additional excise duty was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellants had been informed that the duty was payable, but continued clearances without informing the department for some time. The RT 12 returns were later filed, and for such clearances the department was only required to assess the returns. In that situation, issue of a separate show cause notice for finalisation of the returns was not required, and the plea of limitation could not succeed.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether printed man-made fabrics were liable to duty under Tariff Item 22(1)(b).

Analysis: Tariff Item 22(1)(b) covered man-made fabrics subjected to processes such as bleaching, dyeing and printing. The reference to "any two or more of these processes" was only clarificatory and did not mean that duty was leviable only when more than one process was carried out. Printed fabrics therefore fell within the tariff description.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly held liable under Tariff Item 22(1)(b), against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and whether the penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The redemption fine was upheld because the bank guarantee stood in place of the goods and the amount fixed was not excessive on the value involved. As regards penalty, the appellants had continued clearances despite knowledge of duty liability, but they had also approached the High Court and acted under its directions for part of the period. That mitigating circumstance justified reduction of the penalty.

Conclusion: Redemption fine was sustained, while penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether duty already paid on subsequently cleared goods required abatement from the demand.

Analysis: The plea of double recovery was not finally accepted on merits; instead, the lower authority was directed to verify whether the relevant amount had already been included in the impugned demand and whether duty had later been paid on those goods. If so, abatement was to be allowed.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for verification and possible abatement, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty and possible abatement on verification, while the findings on limitation, classification and redemption fine were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee continues clearances despite knowledge of duty liability, the plea of limitation fails; Tariff Item 22(1)(b) covers printed man-made fabrics; and penalty may be reduced on mitigating circumstances without disturbing the substantive duty demand or redemption fine.

---