Exemption for EOU goods turns on proven manufacturing nexus, while recovery under bond is not barred by ordinary limitation.

Exemption for goods procured by an export oriented undertaking depends on a demonstrable nexus with manufacture, packaging of export goods, or the special conditions needed for production; mere use within the factory is not enough. Items such as air-conditioners, modem, door fittings and epoxy primer must be examined on their actual connection with the manufacturing process, including requirements of sterile pharmaceutical production. Recovery of inadmissible exemption availed under bond is not defeated by ordinary limitation periods under the customs or excise laws, so a limitation objection based on those periods does not succeed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods procured by the export oriented undertaking were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3-6-97 and Notification No. 1/95-C.E. dated 4-1-95. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of the bond and the nature of the exemption availed.

Issue (i): Whether the goods procured by the export oriented undertaking were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3-6-97 and Notification No. 1/95-C.E. dated 4-1-95.

Analysis: The exemption notifications were held to require a nexus between the goods and the manufacture or packaging of export goods. The eligibility was not to be determined on a broad or general notion that the goods were used in the factory, but by examining whether they were required for manufacture, packaging, or for maintaining the peculiar conditions of the industry. Goods such as air-conditioners, modem, door fittings, epoxy primer and similar items had to be tested on the basis of their actual connection with the manufacturing process and the special requirements of producing pharmaceuticals in a sterile environment.

Conclusion: The issue was left for fresh examination by the original authority, and no final finding of eligibility or ineligibility was recorded on the merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of the bond and the nature of the exemption availed.

Analysis: The recovery of inadmissible exemption availed under the bond was held not to be restricted by the ordinary limitation periods under the Customs Act or the Central Excise Act. The plea based on limitation was therefore negatived on principle, even though the merits of the individual items were remanded for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The limitation defence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for reconsideration on the entitlement of the goods to exemption, while the objection based on limitation did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility to exemption for goods supplied to an export oriented undertaking depends on their demonstrable nexus with the manufacture or packaging of export goods, and recovery of inadmissible exemption under the bond is not defeated by ordinary limitation.

---