Rule 56B duty exemption is limited to semi-finished goods; it does not cover removal for a different excisable product.

Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a limited processing facility, not a general permission to remove excisable goods without duty. Read harmoniously with Rule 9, duty was required before removal of goods from the place of manufacture, including removal for further processing or consumption. The facility under Rule 56B was confined to semi-finished goods that remained within the same tariff heading or sub-heading after processing. It did not extend to removal of bare copper wire for conversion into a different excisable commodity without payment of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted removal of bare copper wire to another factory for insulation and its return for further processing when the processed product would fall under a different tariff heading, and how Rule 56B operated in relation to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 56B was held not to create a general permission for removal of excisable goods without duty. The two rules were treated as parts of the same scheme and were to be construed harmoniously. Rule 9 was read as requiring duty payment before removal of excisable goods from the place of manufacture, including removal for consumption or for manufacture of another commodity. On that basis, the facility under Rule 56B was confined to semi-finished goods that, after further processing, continued to remain within the same heading or sub-heading and did not attract fresh duty as a different excisable product.

Conclusion: Rule 56B did not permit removal of bare copper wire for conversion into a different excisable commodity without payment of duty. The interpretation adopted was against the applicants and in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference proceeded on the footing that the question raised involved interpretation of the excise rules, but the substantive view taken was that the exemption facility could not extend to removal of goods for manufacture of a different excisable product.

---