Kirpal, J. - (1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) which had come to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification dated 1st March, 1984 insofar as it related to manufacture of the goods described therein.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondent does not itself manufacture Benzene, Toluene and Xylene but it produces the same in accordance with the procedure set forth in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which allows the removal of the goods without payment of excise duty by the applicant on the applicant satisfying the conditions which would entitle it to the exemption.
(3.) By the notification of 1st March, 1984, the effective rate of duty on various items mentioned in the said notification was reduced. The notification provides that such reduction of the rate of duty would be subject to the specified intended use or the conditions laid down in the corresponding entry in Column (5) of the notification. The proviso to this notification with which we are concerned in this case reads as follows: "Provided that where any such exemption is subject to the intended use, the exemption in such case shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) that it is proved to the satisfaction of an Officer not below the rank of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such goods are used for the intended use specified in column (5) of the said Table; and (ii) where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production; the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is followed." ;