Special excise exemption under Rule 8(2) is limited to the specified case or period, not future clearances.

A special exemption granted under Rule 8(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is confined to the particular case, consignment, lot or specified period for which it is issued, and does not operate as a continuing or perpetual exemption for future clearances. On that construction, the earlier Board order could not cover removals made years later, so the exemption claim failed. The text also states that withdrawal of an appeal cannot be claimed as an unfettered right after arguments have substantially concluded, especially where the request is made at a late stage and would undermine proper administration of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to withdraw the appeal after the hearing had substantially concluded. (ii) Whether the Board's order issued under Rule 8(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 conferred a continuing exemption for future clearances of miniature tyres during the material period.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to withdraw the appeal after the hearing had substantially concluded.

Analysis: The request for withdrawal was made at a late stage, after the matter had been argued at length and when the Bench had indicated a possible adverse result. The majority view was that such withdrawal could not be allowed in the circumstances, since permitting it would defeat the proper administration of justice and was not treated as a matter of unfettered right.

Conclusion: The request to withdraw the appeal was rightly refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board's order issued under Rule 8(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 conferred a continuing exemption for future clearances of miniature tyres during the material period.

Analysis: Rule 8(2) empowered the Central Board of Excise and Customs to grant exemption by special order in each case under exceptional circumstances. The power was held to be limited to a particular case, consignment, lot, or specific period, and not to operate as a permanent or indefinite exemption for all future removals. On that construction, the 1964 order could not govern removals made in 1979-1980.

Conclusion: The Board's order did not apply to the subject goods during the material period, and the exemption claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the appeal stood dismissed, leaving the demand for duty undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A special exemption granted under Rule 8(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is confined to the particular case or period for which it is made and cannot operate as a perpetual exemption for future clearances.

---