Concessional duty on package tea cannot be denied for a single gate pass where duty on black tea was already paid.

Concessional duty on package tea under Notification No. 193/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because, for the period up to 2-7-1988, clearances were covered by a single gate pass rather than separate gate passes. The substantive condition was that duty had already been paid on the black tea used in manufacture, and the record indicated duty payment on both black tea and package tea. The objection concerned only the documentation procedure, which was treated as a technical lapse and not a failure of the exemption condition. The benefit was therefore allowed subject to verification of the duty-payment chart.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 193/86-C.E. could be denied for package tea cleared under a single gate pass for the period up to 2-7-1988 when duty had been paid on the black tea used therein, and whether the difference in gate-pass procedure was only a technical requirement.

Analysis: The notification granted concessional duty on package tea where the black tea used in its manufacture had already suffered duty. The record showed that duty had in fact been paid on both black tea and package tea, and the only objection raised was the absence of separate gate passes for the earlier period. The separate gate-pass practice adopted later did not alter the substantive position, since the objection related only to the manner of documentation and not to any failure of duty payment. The procedural lapse was treated as a technical matter, and the benefit could not be denied on that ground alone, subject to verification of the duty-payment chart.

Conclusion: The denial of the concessional benefit for clearances up to 2-7-1988 was not sustainable merely on the ground of a single gate pass, and the appeal was allowed subject to verification.

---