Manufacture and excise classification of crushed boulders upheld, while extended limitation was denied for bona fide belief.

Crushing boulders into gittis was treated as manufacture because the process produces a commercially distinct excisable product, and the goods were classified under CET sub-heading 2505.90. On limitation, conflicting judicial views and the assessee's bona fide belief that the goods were not excisable prevented use of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the demand beyond six months was disallowed. The demand within the normal period was sustained, and the penalty was reduced in line with the limited survival of the demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether crushing boulders into gittis amounts to manufacture and the resulting goods are classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) Whether the demand beyond the normal limitation period was sustainable and whether the penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether crushing boulders into gittis amounts to manufacture and the resulting goods are classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Analysis: The activity of crushing boulders into stones of specified sizes was treated as manufacture in earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions relied upon for the present dispute. Following that reasoning, the process changes the form of the material into a commercially distinct excisable product, and the goods fall within the relevant tariff entry under Chapter 25.

Conclusion: The activity amounts to manufacture and crushed gittis are classifiable under CET sub-heading 2505.90.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand beyond the normal limitation period was sustainable and whether the penalty required reduction

Analysis: The existence of conflicting judicial views on excisability, coupled with the assessee's bona fide belief that the goods were not excisable, negated application of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the same footing, the penalty was required to be scaled down in line with the limited sustainment of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand beyond six months was set aside, the demand within the normal period was confirmed, and the penalty was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to a limited extent, with liability sustained for the normal period but time-barred demand disallowed and penalty substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Crushing boulders into smaller sized stones constitutes manufacture for excise purposes, but the extended limitation period is unavailable where the assessee acts under a bona fide belief supported by conflicting judicial views.

---