1997 (2) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT

Whether ammonia which was utilised by way of captive consumption by the appellant for manufacture of molten urea was subjected to a continuous process of manufacturing which had resulted in the end product melamine which was admittedly not a fertiliser?

HeLd that:- On the express language of the notifications, in question, it is not possible to agree with the contention of Shri Bhat, learned Additional Solicitor General that the term `fertiliser' employed by the said notification must be understood by adopting the common parlance test to be referred to soil fertiliser only.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) as well as the CEGAT had patently erred in law in taking the view that Notification No. 40 of 1985 did not cover captively consumed ammonia utilised by the appellant as input for manufacturing molten urea. It must also be held that Notification No. 75 of 1984 applied to raw naphtha utilised by the appellant for manufacturing ammonia and molten urea. The condition for earning concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 75 of 1984 on raw naphtha and total exemption from duty as per Notification No. 40 of 1985 on ammonia must be held to have been fully satisfied by the appellant. Hence show cause notices were clearly incompetent and were liable to be quashed and were rightly vacated by the Assistant Collector. Appeal allowed.