Concessional duty for untrimmed copper sheets depends on the specific notification and credit conditions, not the trimming argument.

Untrimmed copper sheets and circles under Heading 7409 were treated as specifically covered by Notification No. 135/94-C.E., not the wider exemption under Notification No. 42/94-C.E. The concessional rate applied only where no credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57Q had been taken and the goods were intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts or utensils. The classification list recorded that intended use, but that did not alter the notification scheme. The argument that trimming did not amount to manufacture did not displace the duty liability fixed under the applicable notification, and the demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether untrimmed copper sheets and circles were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 42/94-C.E. or were chargeable at the concessional rate under Notification No. 135/94-C.E., and whether the appeal could succeed on the plea that trimming did not amount to manufacture.

Analysis: The goods in question were untrimmed sheets or circles of copper falling under Heading 7409 of the Central Excise Tariff. The exemption under Notification No. 42/94-C.E. was held to apply to goods other than untrimmed sheets or circles of copper when intended for use in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts. The specific language of Notification No. 135/94-C.E. showed that untrimmed sheets or circles of copper were covered separately and were eligible only for the concessional rate of duty, subject to the condition that no credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules had been taken and that the goods were intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts or utensils. The classification list also recorded the appellant's declaration regarding such intended use. The plea that trimming did not amount to manufacture did not displace the notification scheme or the duty liability fixed by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The applicable notification was Notification No. 135/94-C.E., the lower authorities rightly confirmed the duty demand, and the appeal failed.

---