Per S.L. Peeran : In all these appeals common question of facts and law is involved and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.

2. The question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is with regard to the grant of exemption of Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.86. The lower original authorities have held that as the final product cleared by the appellants viz. Aluminium Extrusions have been exempted from duty under Notification No. 123/ 81 -CE dt. 2.6.81 and under various other notifications relating to clearance to units located in free trade zones, they are, therefore, liable to pay duty on the intermediate product namely Aluminium Billets, which are used in the manufacture of Extrusions in view of the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.86. The ld. Collector after examining the proviso to this notification has confirmed the finding of the original authority. Noting the argument of the appellant that the extrusions cleared by them are not exempted from duty or chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty, as the clearance of extrusion in terms of the notifications is on the basis of a bond executed by the consignee, the ld. Collector has rejected this plea on the ground that.

"as the extrusions cleared by them are exempted from duty under relevant notifications and the same could not have been cleared without payment of duty but for the said exemption. These notifications exempt excisable goods when brought in connection with the manufacture and packaging of articles into an undertaking approved by the Board of Approval for 100% Export Oriented Undertakings appointed by the Notiflcation of Govt. of India in the former Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies (Department of Industrial Development) or into an undertaking located in the free trade zones. In the appellant's case, the excisable goods viz. Aluminium Extrusions have been cleared without payment of duty on the basis of the exemption contained in the above cited notifications. Hence the cond ition stipulated in the proviso to Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.86 would clearly apply to the intermediate product which is used in the manufacture of extrusions cleared without payment of duty.

7. It is also relevant in this connection to refer to Notification No. 33/92-CE dt. 1.3.92 where the aforesaid proviso to Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.86 has been substituted by the following proviso:

"Provided that nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products (other than those cleared either to a J 00% Export Oriented Unit), which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty".

8. It is apparent from the amendment carried out by Notification No. 33/92-CEdt. 1.3.92 that the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.86 will not apply to goods cleared either to a unit in Free Trade Zone or to a 100% Export Oriented Unit. However, as the period covered by the appeal is prior to 1.3.92, the stipulation as it existed prior to its amendment with effect from 1.3.92 will be applicable.

9. In the circumstances stated above, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals".

3. We have heard Sr. Advocate Shri Joseph Vellapally for the appellants and Shri Somesh Arora, ld. JDR for the respondents.

4. The ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the notification No. 217/86 in respect of billets captively consumed in the manufacture of extrusions and that the mere fact that extrusions in certain cases cleared without payment of duty to the Export processing zone and to 100% Export oriented Undertakings would not disentitle the appellant to the benefit of exemption in such cases. It was further submitted that the extrusions in question cleared to the Export Processing Zone or to the 100% Export Oriented Undertakings were not exempt from