Strict construction of exemption notifications denied benefit for re-rolling scrap, with factual findings upheld on the record.

Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was held inapplicable to mild steel re-rolling cutting scrap or rolling scrap used for re-rolling, because the notification did not extend to that input and the goods were not shown to be bars and rods. The appellants also had not obtained a Central Excise licence or complied with the prescribed procedure. As the Collector's factual findings were supported by the record and no material was shown to dislodge them, appellate interference was not warranted and the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. in respect of the scrap received for re-rolling, and whether the factual findings recorded by the Collector of Central Excise called for interference.

Analysis: The notification did not cover re-rolling scrap as an eligible input. The record showed that the goods received were described as mild steel re-rolling cutting scrap or rolling scrap, and not as bars and rods. The appellants had also not obtained a Central Excise licence or followed the prescribed procedures. The factual findings of the Collector were supported by the documents on record and no material was shown to disturb them.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available to the appellants, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be strictly construed, and where the claimed input is not covered by the notification and the factual findings against eligibility are supported by the record, appellate interference is not warranted.

---