Nil-rate duty and proforma credit did not defeat exemption for copper goods and factory scrap.

Nil-rate assessment was treated as satisfying the requirement that duty be "paid" for exemption under Notification No. 174/84, so copper wire rods made from casted copper wire bars qualified for relief. Copper scrap arising in the factory also remained eligible under Notification No. 172/84 because the notification only required that duty had been paid on the inputs used in manufacture; taking proforma credit under Rule 56A did not by itself defeat the exemption. On both issues, the operative condition was held to be satisfied, and the denial of exemption was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether copper wire rods manufactured from casted copper wire bars were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 174/84 where the inputs were assessable at nil rate of duty; (ii) Whether waste and scrap of copper arising in the appellants' factory was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 172/84 despite the duty-paid inputs having been used on which proforma credit under Rule 56A may have been taken.

Issue (i): Whether copper wire rods manufactured from casted copper wire bars were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 174/84 where the inputs were assessable at nil rate of duty.

Analysis: The goods at the relevant time fell under Tariff Item 26A, and the notification covered unwrought copper in specified forms, including castings, at nil rate. The process involved input and output within the same tariff structure. The expression requiring duty to have been paid was construed to include nil-duty assessment, since assessment at nil rate still constitutes assessment to duty. The principle that 'paid' may include duty contracted to be paid supported the claim for exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 174/84 was available to the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether waste and scrap of copper arising in the appellants' factory was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 172/84 despite the duty-paid inputs having been used on which proforma credit under Rule 56A may have been taken.

Analysis: Copper scrap was covered by the notification, and there was no dispute that it arose during the manufacturing process in the appellants' factory. The notification did not impose any further restriction that the benefit would be denied merely because the duty paid on the inputs had been taken as proforma credit under Rule 56A. The condition was satisfied once duty had been paid on the inputs used in the factory.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 172/84 was available to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable, and the appellants were entitled to relief on both classifications.

---