Prospective exemption and captive consumption under excise law: demand, limitation, and reassessment depend on disclosure and applicable rates.

Cushion compound captively consumed in making cushion backed tread rubber is discussed as a potentially dutiable intermediate product before an exemption notification dated 14-10-1972, with the note stating that such notifications operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective. It also records that a written notice identifying the period and amount can support a demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, particularly where full disclosure of manufacture and captive use was not made. For the later period, the text notes that the department's knowledge of captive consumption can make the extended limitation unavailable under Rule 10, and that duty must be recalculated by applying the correct rates and assessable value.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cushion compound captively consumed in the manufacture of cushion backed tread rubber was dutiable before the exemption notification dated 14-10-1972, and whether the demand could be sustained under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for the later period and whether the duty had been correctly worked out at a uniform rate on the proper assessable value.

Issue (i): Whether cushion compound captively consumed in the manufacture of cushion backed tread rubber was dutiable before the exemption notification dated 14-10-1972, and whether the demand could be sustained under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The exemption notification was held to be prospective and not retrospective. In the absence of material showing that it was merely clarificatory, the goods were treated as chargeable to duty for the period prior to 14-10-1972. The argument of double taxation was rejected, and the written notice specifying the period and amount was treated as a valid demand under Rule 9(2). The absence of full disclosure of manufacture and captive use to the department also supported application of Rule 9(2).

Conclusion: The demand was upheld in principle for the period prior to the exemption notification and was sustained under Rule 9(2).

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for the later period and whether the duty had been correctly worked out at a uniform rate on the proper assessable value.

Analysis: For the period when the department had knowledge of captive consumption, the demand was held to be time-barred under Rule 10. The duty calculation was also found to require reconsideration because different rates were applicable during the relevant period and the assessable value required re-computation.

Conclusion: The demand was set aside for the period from 2-2-1972 onwards, and the remaining part was remanded for fresh re-assessment on rate and valuation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the later period demand was annulled on limitation, while the earlier period demand survived for fresh quantification and reassessment.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification is prospective unless retrospective operation is expressly provided, a captive-consumption intermediate product may be dutiable, and where the department has knowledge of the removal or use, the longer limitation applicable to non-disclosed clearances cannot be invoked for the later period.

---