Procedural non-compliance with scrap melting intimation cannot by itself deny substantive excise benefit.

Non-compliance with a trade notice issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, relating to intimation before melting scrap, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive condition of exemption. Where the admitted facts showed that the scrap had in fact been melted and the dispute concerned only the manner of intimation and supervision, the procedural omission was held insufficient to deny the benefit claimed. The stricter precedent on exemption conditions was distinguished, and the earlier identical-facts Tribunal view was followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the trade notice requirement issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, relating to intimation before melting scrap, was only a procedural lapse so that substantive benefit could not be denied.

Analysis: The trade notice, though issued under Rule 233, was treated as a procedural instruction and not as a condition of an exemption notification. The admitted facts showed that the scrap had been melted and the dispute was only about the manner of intimation and supervision. The precedent concerning strict compliance with exemption conditions was held distinguishable, while the earlier Tribunal decision on identical facts was followed. On that footing, procedural non-observance was held insufficient to deny the benefit claimed.

Conclusion: The requirement in the trade notice was procedural, the lapse did not justify denial of substantive benefit, and the impugned order was upheld.

---