9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the concession to the appellants in respect of naptha relatable to quantity of vented gas for the period 29.9.79 to 2.10.79. In appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) gave benefit of doubt to the appellants in respect of gases arising from burning of raw naptha on 29.9.79 but otherwise confirmed the demand. Aggrieved with this order the appellants have filed appeal to this Tribunal. 3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri J. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned JDR for the respondent were heard and papers perused. Shri Banerjee submitted that exemption under the notification is available if raw naptha is intended for specified use. Raw naptha in fact was obtained for specified use and ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been placed to appreciate or controvert this finding. We see no reason to controvert this finding. As for Shri Banerjee's emphasis on use of the word 'intended' in the notification, it has to be read not in isolation but with other conditions of the notification which has already been reproduced above. It appears that raw naptha was obtained for manufacture of urea but gas obtained from the same had to be vented due to negligence of the appellants and not due to any technological necessity. If therefore the lower authorities held that condition No. (i) of the notification as to proof to the satisfaction of the Asst. Collector had not been fulfilled, we see no infirmity in the same. 5. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 1. there is the satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector that raw naptha brought is intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizers; 2. Chapter X has to be followed and the requirements set out thereunder have to be satisfied. The appellants have pleaded that they hold a L-6 Licence under which they were allowed to get raw naptha at concessional rate of duty. So far as the proviso (1) under para 1 of the notification is concerned, the same is satisfied it is not In dispute that the appellants were allowed to receive raw naptha which was issued only on the satisfaction that appellants intended to use the same for the manufacture of fertilizers. He however, could not produce a copy of L-6 licence as also an application filed by them for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fertilizer. It is not a case of the appellants that the plant was fully operational for the purpose of production of fertilizer. They have accepted that because of the break down of some equipment, the manufacturing stream for the fertilizer had been interrupted. It appears from the record that raw naptha was continued to be fed as an input for some technical reasons despite the fact that the plant was not operational for the purpose of manufacture of fertilizer and the gases produced out of the raw naptha were not taken further in the manufacturing stream of fertilizer and were flared out. The picture that emerges from this is that the appellants knew that the fertilizer could not be produced when raw naptha was fed as an input but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
