Special excise rules on waste and scrap prevail over job-work removal facilities; limitation still cuts off stale demands.

Administrative instructions fixing an adjudication ceiling do not by themselves strip an Assistant Collector of statutory power to determine duty where the notice does not invoke fraud, suppression or similar grounds. In relation to brass scrap generated in manufacture, the special rule governing waste and scrap prevails over the general job-work removal facility: scrap arising in the factory is not cleared duty-free merely because it is sent to job workers, absent a specific government order permitting such removal. A demand can also be sustained only for the period within the normal six-month limitation, with the earlier portion barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to confirm the duty demand because the amount exceeded the monetary ceiling fixed by executive instructions; (ii) Whether brass scrap generated in the factory could be removed to job workers without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2), and whether duty was nonetheless payable under the special rule governing waste and scrap; (iii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation to the extent it related to periods beyond six months from the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to confirm the duty demand because the amount exceeded the monetary ceiling fixed by executive instructions.

Analysis: The statutory power to determine duty under Section 11A vested in the Assistant Collector on the facts of the case, since the notice did not invoke fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression or similar grounds that would require action by the Collector. The monetary ceiling relied upon by the appellants flowed only from administrative instructions and did not divest the officer of statutory authority. Exceeding that ceiling was treated as an administrative irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether brass scrap generated in the factory could be removed to job workers without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2), and whether duty was nonetheless payable under the special rule governing waste and scrap.

Analysis: Rule 57F(2) permitted removal of inputs as such or after partial processing for specified purposes, but the rule dealing specifically with waste arising from processing of inputs was Rule 57F(4). The scrap generated in the manufacture of final products was a distinct excisable product, and in the absence of a Government order specifying brass scrap as eligible waste for removal without duty, the scrap could not be cleared duty-free merely because it was sent for conversion by job workers. The declaration of scrap as an input and the permission earlier granted did not override the duty liability attaching to the scrap when cleared from the factory.

Conclusion: Duty on the brass scrap was upheld, and the assessees were not entitled to remove it without payment of duty under Rule 57F(2).

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation to the extent it related to periods beyond six months from the notice.

Analysis: The notice dated 6-2-1989 could sustain a demand only for the period within six months preceding it, and the earlier part of the demand was outside the normal limitation period. No basis was found to sustain the extended period for the barred portion.

Conclusion: The time-barred portion of the demand was excluded.

Final Conclusion: The demand on the generated brass scrap was substantially sustained, but the portion beyond the permissible limitation period was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific excise rule governs waste and scrap generated during manufacture, that special provision prevails over the general job-work removal facility, and duty liability on such scrap cannot be avoided merely by obtaining permission for removal to a job worker or by relying on administrative instructions fixing adjudication limits.

---