Captive intermediate goods and nil-rate clearances were held outside the scope of a separate exemption notification.

Forgings used as intermediate products in crankshaft manufacture were treated as having a distinct identity as finished goods rather than mere raw material. Applying the prior Larger Bench ruling, the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-CE was held unavailable where the final products or parts were cleared under Chapter X at nil rate of duty. On that basis, the duty demand on the intermediate goods was considered sustainable under the Central Excise Rules, and the impugned orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether forgings used in the manufacture of crankshafts cleared under Chapter X procedure at nil rate of duty were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-CE, and whether duty demand on such intermediate products was sustainable.

Analysis: The forgings were treated as intermediate products having a distinct identity as finished goods and not merely as raw material. The prior Larger Bench ruling was applied as governing the issue, and it was held to have direct bearing on cases where final products or parts were cleared free of duty. On that basis, the benefit of the exemption notification was held unavailable to the goods cleared under Chapter X procedure at nil rate of duty, and the demand raised under the Central Excise Rules was held justified.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the duty demand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were sustained and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods used captively and cleared as part of a final product under a nil-rate or exempt clearance regime are not entitled to a separate exemption intended for dutiable clearances when the governing precedent treats such clearances as outside the benefit of the notification.

---