Duty-paid input exemption denied where scrap inputs lacked proof of prior excise duty and suppression justified extended limitation

Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was denied because the assessee failed to show that the old and used scrap inputs purchased from kabaris and auction sources had already suffered central excise duty at some prior stage. The Tribunal held that the scrap's character as re-rollable material did not by itself prove duty-paid status, and the department's evidence of non-duty-paid inputs remained unrebutted. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the classification list and intimations did not disclose the specific nature and duty status of the inputs, and that omission was treated as suppression of material facts. The appeal therefore failed on both exemption eligibility and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was available where the inputs were old and used scrap obtained through kabaris and auction purchases; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable for non-disclosure of the nature and duty status of the inputs.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was available where the inputs were old and used scrap obtained through kabaris and auction purchases.

Analysis: The condition in the notification required that the final products be made from inputs on which central excise duty had already been paid. The material on record showed that the inputs were old and used re-rollable material arising from wear and tear and purchased from kabaris who had obtained them in auction from Government departments. No evidence was produced to show that duty had been paid at any prior stage. On the contrary, the department's evidence that the inputs were non-duty-paid was not rebutted. The Tribunal also relied on the settled view that such old and used materials may be treated as re-rollable scrap, but that by itself did not establish duty-paid character.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available and the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable for non-disclosure of the nature and duty status of the inputs.

Analysis: The classification list and intimations did not disclose the specific nature of the inputs or the fact that they were old and used materials arising out of wear and tear. Since eligibility to exemption depended on the duty-paid character of the inputs, that fact was material and was within the knowledge of the assessee. The prior departmental views and correspondence did not negate the omission of vital information. The non-disclosure was therefore treated as suppression of material facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was invokable and this issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee did not satisfy the notification condition of duty-paid inputs and the demand was not time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption tied to duty-paid inputs cannot be claimed without evidence that the inputs had suffered excise duty at some prior stage, and material non-disclosure of the duty status and nature of inputs justifies invocation of the extended limitation period.

---