Captive-consumption exemption and limitation turn on conditional final-product exemption, departmental knowledge, and absence of suppression.

A captive-consumption exemption for an intermediate product cannot be denied merely because the final product enjoys a conditional exemption. The commentary explains that the chewing tobacco notification was treated as conditional rather than absolute, so the bar under Notification No. 52/2002-CE did not apply to the captively used 'Compound'. It also notes that the extended limitation period was unavailable because the manufacturing process and records were already within departmental knowledge, there was no proven suppression with intent to evade duty, and the exercise was revenue neutral. On that basis, the duty demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE was an absolute exemption so as to deny benefit of Notification No. 52/2002-CE to the intermediate product 'Compound' captively consumed in the manufacture of chewing tobacco; (ii) whether the demand was sustainable on limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE was an absolute exemption so as to deny benefit of Notification No. 52/2002-CE to the intermediate product 'Compound' captively consumed in the manufacture of chewing tobacco.

Analysis: The exemption granted to chewing tobacco under Notification No. 8/2004-CE was held to be conditional, not absolute. The scheme required an amount equal to the duty payable, but for the exemption, to be invested in the specified North Eastern purposes, and the product was not shown to be exempt from all duties in the relevant sense. The intermediate product 'Compound' was also covered by the notification, and once the final product was not wholly exempt, the bar in Notification No. 52/2002-CE did not apply. The captively used compound, therefore, could not be denied exemption on the premise that the final product was wholly exempt.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under Notification No. 52/2002-CE was unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was sustainable on limitation.

Analysis: The process of manufacture and existence of the intermediate product were already within departmental knowledge, records were maintained, and audits had been conducted earlier without objection. In these circumstances, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The entire exercise was also revenue neutral, which negatived any motive to evade duty. The extended period could not, therefore, be invoked, and the connected demand for interest and penalty also could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the related interest and penalty also failed; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A captive-consumption exemption cannot be denied merely because the final product enjoys a conditional exemption; where the final product is not wholly exempt and the departmental case does not establish suppression, the extended period and consequential penalty cannot be sustained.

---