Exemption for aluminium strips denied where manufacture from wire rods failed the crude-material condition; corrigendum and limitation objections also failed.

Aluminium strips made from aluminium wire rods were held outside the exemption and set-off notification because the benefit applied only to strips manufactured from aluminium in crude form from the specified materials. The duty on the finished strips was treated as independent of duty earlier paid on the base product, so the demand stood. On limitation, the relevant period was computed with reference to finalisation of the RT-12 return, making the demand from 1 May 1969 timely. A corrigendum correcting the authority named in the show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings, and the objection that the notice was vague was rejected as unsubstantiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether aluminium strips manufactured from aluminium wire rods were entitled to the exemption and set-off under the notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for the period prior to the relevant cut-off date. (iii) Whether the corrigendum substituting the proper authority in the show-cause notice invalidated the proceedings. (iv) Whether the show-cause notice was vague.

Issue (i): Whether aluminium strips manufactured from aluminium wire rods were entitled to the exemption and set-off under the notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The exemption applied only where aluminium strips were manufactured from aluminium in crude form made from the specified materials. Aluminium wire rods were treated as distinct from aluminium in crude form, and the manufacture of aluminium strips from wire rods did not satisfy the condition of the notification. The duty levied on aluminium strips was also independent of any duty previously paid on the base product.

Conclusion: The exemption and set-off were not available, and the demand was valid against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for the period prior to the relevant cut-off date.

Analysis: The period of limitation was computed with reference to the finalisation of the RT-12 return for the relevant month, not merely the date of the show-cause notice. On that basis, the demand from 1 May 1969 was held to be within time.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation to that extent, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the corrigendum substituting the proper authority in the show-cause notice invalidated the proceedings.

Analysis: The original notice contained an incorrect reference to the authority to whom cause was to be shown, but the proper adjudicating authority under the rules was the Assistant Collector. The corrigendum merely corrected the error and did not terminate or exhaust the proceedings.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was valid and the proceedings were not vitiated, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the show-cause notice was vague.

Analysis: The challenge of vagueness was not substantiated and the notice disclosed the basis of the demand sufficiently.

Conclusion: The objection of vagueness was rejected, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all material grounds and the impugned demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A finished article manufactured from a distinct excisable input is not entitled to a notification benefit reserved for manufacture from specified crude material, and an error in naming the adjudicating authority in the notice can be corrected by corrigendum where the proper forum is otherwise clear under the rules.

---