Chapter X concessional clearance liability rests on the buyer-concession holder, not the manufacturer-seller.

Duty on goods cleared under the Chapter X concessional procedure was treated as payable by the buyer-concession holder who obtained the goods and executed the bond, because the obligation under Rules 192 and 196 was to account for the goods and use them only in the permitted manner. Section 11A was held inapplicable to the manufacturer-seller, since the dispute was not one of ordinary non-levy, short-levy, short-payment, or erroneous refund by the manufacturer, but of the buyer's later failure to comply with the concessional scheme. The demand on the manufacturer was therefore unsustainable, and the department could not pursue recovery in a manner that risked double collection.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty on goods cleared under Chapter X concession could be demanded from the manufacturer-seller under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or whether liability lay on the buyer-applicant who obtained the goods under the concessional procedure.

Analysis: The goods were removed without duty under the notifications and Chapter X procedure for use by the concession-receiver. The liability contemplated by Rule 192 and Rule 196 attached to the applicant who obtained the concession and executed the bond, because the obligation was to account for the goods and ensure use in the permitted manner. Section 11A was held inapplicable, since the case was not one of ordinary non-levy, short-levy, short-payment, or erroneous refund by the manufacturer, but of a subsequent failure by the buyer to account for or use the goods as required under the concessional scheme. The manufacturer had no control over the buyer's subsequent disposal or misuse of the goods, and the demand on the manufacturer would also expose the department to the risk of double recovery.

Conclusion: The duty liability was not fastened on the manufacturer-seller, and the demand raised against it was unsustainable.

---