Re-rollable steel inputs under exemption notification covered intermediate rolled pieces, and duty-paid condition was satisfied despite lawful exemption.

An exemption notification, as amended, was read to cover bars and rods made from roughly shaped rolled steel pieces because the intermediate product was commercially distinct excisable goods and fell within the re-rollable material contemplated by the scheme. The later amendment confirming inclusion of ingots, bars, rods and other rollable or re-rollable material reinforced that construction, so the final products remained eligible for exemption. The proviso requiring duty to have already been paid on inputs was also treated as satisfied where the inputs were lawfully cleared under exemption, because duty legally payable was sufficient. The demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bars and rods manufactured during 1-3-1992 to 9-3-1992 from roughly shaped pieces obtained by rolling steel ingots were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 202/88 as amended by Notification No. 33/92. (ii) Whether the condition in the first proviso to Notification No. 202/88 requiring duty to have already been paid on the inputs was satisfied where the intermediate product was exempt from duty.

Issue (i): Whether bars and rods manufactured during 1-3-1992 to 9-3-1992 from roughly shaped pieces obtained by rolling steel ingots were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 202/88 as amended by Notification No. 33/92.

Analysis: The amended table in Notification No. 33/92 separated the earlier common entry and placed bars and rods in Serial No. 2A with the input description "re-rollable material of iron and steel other than stainless steel". The intermediate product, namely roughly shaped pieces obtained by rolling ingots, was treated as commercially distinct excisable goods and as re-rollable material. The exemption scheme was read as covering the production chain from ingot to roughly shaped pieces and then to bars and rods. The later Notification No. 53/92, which expanded the input description to include "ingots, bars, rods and other rollable or re-rollable material", supported this construction and showed that the intermediate rolled pieces fell within the intended class of inputs.

Conclusion: The bars and rods manufactured from roughly shaped pieces were entitled to exemption for the disputed period, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition in the first proviso to Notification No. 202/88 requiring duty to have already been paid on the inputs was satisfied where the intermediate product was exempt from duty.

Analysis: The proviso was construed in the light of earlier Tribunal and High Court authority holding that the expression requiring duty to have already been paid includes duty that was legally payable, even if the inputs were cleared under an exemption and no duty was actually collected. On that reasoning, the fact that the intermediate rough-shape product was exempt did not defeat the benefit of the notification for the final product.

Conclusion: The duty-paid condition was treated as satisfied, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption notification, as amended, covered the disputed clearances and the demand could not be sustained; the order confirming duty was set aside and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification covers a production chain through an intermediate excisable product that is commercially and functionally re-rollable, the final product remains eligible for exemption, and a condition that duty must already have been paid on the inputs is satisfied even when the inputs were cleared under a lawful exemption.

---