Prospective withdrawal of clearance permission and lack of monetary jurisdiction invalidated the duty demand on aluminium scrap.

Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) for clearance of aluminium waste and scrap remained effective until withdrawn, and a later non-statutory trade notice could not retrospectively defeat that vested entitlement; the duty demand for removals made while permission was in force was therefore unsustainable. The adjudicating authority also lacked jurisdiction to confirm a demand beyond the monetary limit prescribed in the Board's instructions, so the order failed on jurisdictional grounds as well. The appeal was allowed and the demand set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether aluminium waste and scrap cleared for conversion under Rule 57F(2) could be subjected to duty after the assessee had been granted permission for such clearance and before that permission was withdrawn; (ii) Whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to confirm a demand exceeding the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's instructions.

Issue (i): Whether aluminium waste and scrap cleared for conversion under Rule 57F(2) could be subjected to duty after the assessee had been granted permission for such clearance and before that permission was withdrawn.

Analysis: Permission for removal of the waste and scrap had been expressly granted under Rule 57F(2), and the later trade notice withdrawing such permission was issued only thereafter. The withdrawal was treated as prospective in operation, since non-statutory trade notices cannot divest a vested right retrospectively unless the statute so permits. The removal in dispute took place while the permission was still in force, and there was no basis to demand duty for that period.

Conclusion: The demand on this ground was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to confirm a demand exceeding the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's instructions.

Analysis: The demand exceeded the monetary threshold stated in the Board's circular, and the matter did not fall within the category to which the monetary relaxation applied. On that basis, the adjudication was held to be beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The order also failed for want of jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the duty demand set aside both on merits and on jurisdictional grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-statutory trade notice withdrawing permission operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively defeat a vested entitlement already exercised, and an adjudication made beyond the prescribed monetary jurisdiction is without authority.

---