Extended limitation and manufacture under central excise turn on prior departmental knowledge and whether processing creates a new product.

Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) was unavailable where the department already knew of the non-power-operated section through the filed site plan and repeated factory visits, so wilful suppression was not established and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred. Exemption under Notification No. 71/83-C.E. was not available because power had been used in relation to lacquering and varnishing before use in the non-power-operated section, but those processes did not amount to manufacture because they did not create a new and distinct product. The demand and penalties were therefore not sustainable, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the allegation of wilful suppression of facts; (ii) whether the clearances from the non-power-operated section were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/83-C.E. and whether lacquering and varnishing amounted to manufacture.

Issue (i): whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the allegation of wilful suppression of facts.

Analysis: The factory had both power-operated and non-power-operated sections in the same premises, the site plan had been submitted to the department, and excise officers had been visiting the unit from time to time. On these facts, the alleged non-disclosure of the non-power-operated section and its clearances did not establish wilful suppression. Mere non-filing of clearance details, in the factual setting of continuous departmental visits and disclosed layout, was insufficient to justify the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred.

Issue (ii): whether the clearances from the non-power-operated section were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/83-C.E. and whether lacquering and varnishing amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 71/83-C.E. was unavailable because power had been used in relation to the manufacture, namely for lacquering and varnishing the black plates before their use in the non-power-operated section. However, on the question whether lacquering and varnishing themselves constituted manufacture, the process did not alter the identity of the tin plates in the circumstances considered. The clearance from the non-power-operated section therefore could not be upheld on the exemption theory, but the process relied upon by the department did not amount to manufacture.

Conclusion: The exemption claim under Notification No. 71/83-C.E. failed, but lacquering and varnishing were held not to amount to manufacture.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has prior knowledge of the existence and functioning of a non-power-operated unit through site plans and repeated visits, the extended period under section 11A cannot be invoked absent wilful suppression; and a process such as lacquering or varnishing does not amount to manufacture unless it brings about a new and distinct product.

---