Per Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President : This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The learned Counsel has stated that the main question involved in this case relates to interpretation of Notification No.83/83 and more particularly as to the meaning of the words "clearances for home consumption".

3. The appellant is engaged in twin business of (a) manufacturing and clearing goods for home consumption (b) processing of cotton fabrics on job work basis and clearing the same under bond to the original supplier under Rule 96D of the Rules. The appellant claimed benefit of exemption Notifications No. 80/80 and 83/83. While calculating the value of clearances, the appellant excluded there from the value of clearances of fabrics returned under bond to the original supplier.

3.1 The classification lists are officially approved. The appellant discharged the duty liability to the extent payable as the Department, in response to their written request for clarification had accepted their view point.

4. It was their contention that goods cleared under bond cannot be considered as goods cleared for home consumption. In this connection, we would like to draw pointed attention to Rule 96D which relates to procedure for removal of cotton fabrics or jute manufactured from one factory to another without payment of duty for processing.

4.1 Sub-rule 3 of this Rule allows removal of the goods from one factory to another under bond whereas Sub-rule 4 deals with clearance for home consumption and Sub-rule 5 provides for payment of duty either by the processor or the originating factory, inter-alia. that if the processed goods are removed to the original factory, such removal shall be subjected to sub-rule 3.

5. It was his submission that this Rule clearly distinguishes between clearances under home consumption and clearances under bond. It was also his submission that since under Rule 9 read with 49, the duty was payable on removal of the goods for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity it means that, this Rule read with 49 and 96D require duty to be paid only or clearance of the goods are being marketed (apart from captive consumption).

6. The Notification No.83/83 refers to the goods specified therein and cleared for home consumption by or on behalf of manufacturer from one or more factories. In these circumstances, their contention was required to be upheld on merits.

7. The learned D.R. reiterated the Department's view points and emphasized that the Notifications 80/80 and 83/83 do not provide for exclusion of the value of clearances underbond. He also stated that the Assistant Collector has already given the benefit of time bar. The order, is therefore, required to be upheld.

8. We have considered the above submissions. We find that there is lot of force in the argments of the learned Advocate. Both the customs law as well as the Central Excise Law clearly distinguish between clearances for home consumption on payment of duty and clearances under bond (without payment of duty) and clearances for export. This is evident from the language of Rule 9 and 49 read with Rule 96D in the case of Central Excise Act (and in the case of Customs the provisions are incorporated in the Act itself (where Section 47 provides for clearance of goods for home consumption and Section 46 provides for entry of goods on importation provides for a bill of Entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form and Section 50 provides for entry of goods for exportation and presentation of shipping Bill for the purpose. In fact, there are separate Bills of Entry prescribed for home consumption and warehousing).

9. In case of Central Excise, the crucial lines in Rule 9 are "No excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured........" whether for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity in or outside such place". In Rule 49, the relevant