Exemption clearance under valid certificates shields the manufacturer; misuse at the recipient's end cannot sustain duty or penalty.

Goods cleared under a valid CT-3/CT-2 exemption certificate could not attract duty from the manufacturer merely because the alleged misuse or end-use breach occurred at the recipient L-6 holder's end. The clearance was made in conformity with the exemption procedure and the competent authority's certificates, so any liability for irregularity attached to the party at whose end the misuse occurred, not the manufacturer. Penalty against the manufacturer was also unsustainable because the notice did not propose such penal action against it. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand and penalty could be sustained against the manufacturer who cleared goods under a valid CT-3/CT-2 based exemption when the alleged misuse or incorrect permission lay at the recipient L-6 holder's end.

Analysis: The clearance was made against certificates issued by the competent authority under the exemption scheme, and the dispute turned on whether any breach of the notification condition or Chapter X procedure should attach liability to the manufacturer. The decision accepted that the alleged irregularity, if any, occurred at the recipient's end and that the goods were cleared on the basis of valid certificates. On that footing, the manufacturer could not be fastened with duty merely because the end-use or intermediate process was questioned, and any demand, if otherwise sustainable, had to be pursued against the recipient who misused the goods. The penalty was also unsustainable because the notice did not propose such penal action against the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty against the manufacturer were not sustainable, and the Revenue appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are cleared under a valid exemption procedure on the strength of certificates issued by the competent authority, liability for misuse or breach of end-use conditions attaches to the party at whose end the misuse occurs, and not to the manufacturer who made the clearance in conformity with that procedure.

---