Duty-free scrap exemption survives when actual use is proved, and adjacent factory manufacture does not defeat relief.

Duty-free receipt of steel waste and scrap under Notification No. 55/86-C.E. was available where the assessee complied with Chapter X procedure and showed actual use of molten steel in manufacture of the specified goods, even though final casting took place in an adjacent factory. The note states that the notification did not require manufacture to occur only within the same premises, so the alleged misuse was not established and exemption could not be denied on that basis. It also states that the limitation objection failed because the demand provision could not be treated as incorporating Section 11A(1) in the manner urged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 55/86-C.E. for duty-free receipt of steel waste and scrap where the molten steel was transferred to an adjacent factory for manufacture of castings. (ii) Whether the demand raised under the Central Excise Rules was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 55/86-C.E. for duty-free receipt of steel waste and scrap where the molten steel was transferred to an adjacent factory for manufacture of castings.

Analysis: The notification required the waste and scrap to be used in the manufacture of specified goods and did not prescribe that the manufacture had to take place only in the same premises of the licence holder. The record showed that the assessee had followed the Chapter X procedure and had produced documents showing actual use of the molten steel for manufacture of the specified goods in the adjacent factory. On the facts, the alleged misuse was not established, and the principle applied in the cited larger bench decision supported grant of the exemption benefit.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification and the duty demand could not be sustained on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised under the Central Excise Rules was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was tested against the law on the point and the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the parties. The time-bar objection was not accepted in view of the governing principle that the limitation provision in Section 11A(1) could not be read into the Rule 196 demand in the manner suggested by the assessee.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the exemption benefit was available on the facts, and the duty demand was set aside despite rejection of the limitation objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions for duty-free receipt and use of goods are substantially complied with, and the goods are shown to have been used for manufacture of the specified products, denial of exemption cannot rest merely on the fact that final manufacture occurred in an adjacent premises; a separate plea of limitation will fail where the governing demand provision does not support it.

---