Countervailing duty concession for imported goods depends on user compliance with excise procedure, not importer status alone.

Imported goods may qualify for countervailing duty concession where the exemption notification links relief to use in a specified industrial process and the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules is satisfied by the intended user. The governing approach is to assess countervailing duty by treating the imported goods as if they were manufactured in India, so importer status alone does not exclude compliance with the procedure. The highest-rate rule applies only when goods of exactly the same description attract different rates under the same notification; it does not extend to goods falling under a distinct entry. On that basis, the concession was available where eligibility was proved, but the highest-rate claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be availed in relation to imported goods for the purpose of claiming concession in countervailing duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the goods in question could be charged at the highest rate on the footing that similar goods attracted different rates under the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be availed in relation to imported goods for the purpose of claiming concession in countervailing duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The concession under the relevant exemption notification depended on the use of the goods in the specified manner and compliance with the Chapter X procedure. The governing principle was that countervailing duty must be worked out by imagining the imported goods as if they were manufactured in India. Rule 192 was wide enough to apply to any person seeking remission on excisable goods used in a specified industrial process, and nothing in the scheme excluded an importer. The intended user's eligibility and compliance with the prescribed procedure were material, not the importer's status as such.

Conclusion: The Chapter X procedure was not inapplicable to imported goods, and the assessee was entitled to concession where the user satisfied the prescribed requirements.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods in question could be charged at the highest rate on the footing that similar goods attracted different rates under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The higher rate could apply only where goods of exactly the same description attracted different rates. The goods in dispute fell within a specific entry of the notification carrying a single rate, and the existence of other categories of parts under different entries did not attract the highest rate for the goods concerned.

Conclusion: The contention that the highest rate applied was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in part, with concession upheld where the beneficiary was eligible under the notification, while the remaining claim failed for want of proof of eligibility; the additional duty was not to be enhanced on the basis of the highest-rate rule.

Ratio Decidendi: For countervailing duty, exemption-linked procedural requirements under excise law may be satisfied by the intended user even where the goods are imported, and the highest-rate rule applies only when identical goods are shown to attract different rates under the same description.

---