Exemption notification scope cannot be narrowed by administrative procedure where duty-paid essences were used in aerated waters.

An exemption notification covering duty-paid flavouring essences or concentrates used in aerated waters could not be restricted by a Rule 56A procedure or trade notice where the notification itself imposed no such condition. The administrative procedure was only regulatory and could not override the notification or deny relief for non-compliance with a formality not made mandatory by the exemption. The notification also did not exclude essences already in stock when it came into force, so duty-paid essences received earlier remained eligible if used in manufacture. Relief depended only on verifying that the essences were duty paid and the extent of their actual use; the matter was remanded for that limited factual verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the exemption notification could be denied for non-compliance with a procedure under Rule 56A not prescribed in the notification, and whether duty-paid flavouring essences received before the notification could still qualify when used in the manufacture of aerated waters.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption where duty-paid essences or concentrates were used in the manufacture of aerated waters. The only factual enquiry required was whether the essences used were duty paid and the extent to which they were used. The procedure introduced through trade notice and executive instructions was only administrative and could not override the notification or create a bar where the notification itself did not impose such a condition. The lower appellate authority erred in treating the executive procedure as mandatory and in failing to exercise independent quasi-judicial judgment on the scope of the notification. Since the notification did not exclude essences already in stock when it came into force, the benefit could not be denied on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification in respect of aerated waters manufactured using duty-paid essences received before the notification, and non-following of the Rule 56A procedure was not a valid ground to deny relief. The matter was remanded only for verification of the quantum of use and the amount of exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive instructions or prescribed procedural formalities cannot curtail the scope of an exemption notification unless the notification itself makes compliance with such procedure a condition precedent to the benefit.

---