Status holder evidence may preserve exemption where prior permission was absent for EOU clearance of waste materials.

A 100% EOU's clearance of spent salt and spent acid under Notification No. 23/2003-CE depended on whether status holder status was established, because that status could make prior permission from the Development Commissioner unnecessary. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had rejected the exemption claim for lack of evidence of status holder status, but required the assessee to be given an opportunity to produce such evidence. If status holder status is proved, non-intimation or absence of permission would amount only to a procedural lapse, and the exemption could still be examined. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether a 100% EOU could clear spent salt and spent acid under Notification No. 23/2003-CE without specific permission from the Development Commissioner, and whether absence of proof of status holder warranted denial of exemption.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the claim that the assessee was a status holder and, therefore, prior permission for removal of the goods was unnecessary. The record showed that the lower appellate authority had rejected the claim because evidence of status holder status had not been produced. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce such evidence, and if status holder status is established, the absence of intimation or permission would be only a procedural lapse and the exemption could be considered.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration after allowing the assessee to produce evidence of status holder status.

---