Duty-paid input exemption denied for ship breaking scrap; suppression findings sustained extended limitation for the duty demand.

Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was interpreted as available only where the final products were manufactured from inputs on which duty had already been paid, and the deeming explanation extended only to stocks not clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. Ship breaking scrap purchased from the market was treated, on the facts, as clearly recognisable as non-duty paid, particularly because the assessee did not disclose that the material came from ship breakers. The exemption was therefore unavailable. A specific allegation of misstatement and suppression in the notice, together with non-disclosure of the true source of inputs, justified invocation of the extended limitation period; the demand was not time barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ship breaking scrap purchased from the market could be treated as eligible inputs for the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. dated 1-8-1983; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period was justified.

Issue (i): Whether ship breaking scrap purchased from the market could be treated as eligible inputs for the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. dated 1-8-1983.

Analysis: The exemption applied only where the final products were manufactured from inputs on which duty had already been paid, and the explanation deemed only those stocks of inputs in the country not clearly recognisable as non-duty paid to be duty paid. Ship breaking scrap arose from dismantled ships and was treated on the facts as clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The appellants' own reply showed that they treated the material as re-rollable scrap and had not disclosed that the inputs were obtained from ship breakers. In these circumstances, the condition of the notification was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. was not available to the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period was justified.

Analysis: A specific allegation of misstatement and suppression had been made in the show cause notice, and once such an allegation was raised, the burden lay on the appellants to rebut it. The record showed non-disclosure of the true nature and source of the inputs and a deliberate attempt to avail an exemption that was otherwise unavailable. On that basis, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be properly invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was not time barred and the extended period was validly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the scrap was held to be ineligible for the claimed exemption and the demand was sustained as within the extended limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the notification conditions require duty-paid inputs, scrap shown on the facts to be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid is outside the exemption, and specific allegations of suppression in the notice justify shifting the burden to the assessee and sustaining invocation of the extended limitation period.

---