TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible in respect of that quantity of ammonia supplied by the appellants to the Heavy Water Plant at Talcher for manufacture of heavy water but not returned to the appellants in terms of the notification. The lower authorities held that the benefit of the notification was not admissible. 3. We have heard Shri Jayant Das, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the respondent. 4. Several contentions were put forth before us but, in the view which we propose to take, we do not consider it necessary to advert to, and discuss, all of them. 5. The notification in question exempted ammonia from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon subject to the conditions set out therein. One condition was that the procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period when different units of the plant were undergoing test and trial runs prior to the commissioning of the plant and, during the said period, no fertilizer was in fact produced. Again the Tribunal held in Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar -1985 (21) E.L.T. 500 that though Notification No. 145/71 exempted oxygen from excise duty if it was used in the manufacture of fertilizer, the benefit of the notification would be admissible in respect of that quantity of oxygen which was used in the trial runs of the fertilizer plant before its being commissioned and during that period, no fertilizer was actually produced. 8. It is the case of the present appellants that the quantity of ammonia in respect of which duty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recoverable from the appellants. In this connection, Shri Jayant Das, Counsel, for the appellants drew our attention to the Notification No. 192/84 dated the 10th August, 1984, by which Notification No. 191/79 dated the 19th May, 1979, was amended such that Column 4 of the notification in relation to ammonia read as follows :- Ammonia is supplied by M/s. Fertilizer Corporation of India, Talcher, to the Heavy Water Plant, Talcher :- (a) for the manufacture of Heavy Water, and (b) for the testing and commissioning of the said Heavy Water Plant, and such Ammonia is returned either in full or in part, by such Heavy Water Plant to M/s. Fertilizer Corporation of India, Talcher, and the Ammonia so returned is used by M/s. Fertilizer Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the designated purpose, should be raised against the manufacturer of the designated goods, was rejected by the Tribunal. It was held that the recipient of the goods, namely, the holder of the L6 licence, who had undertaken to use the goods for the specified purpose and had executed a bond to ensure compliance with the notification, was responsible for payment of duty in such circumstances. In the present instance, the demand for duty has been raised against the manufacturer, and not the consumer, of ammonia. On this ground also, the demand raised against the appellants is not sustainable. 11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities with consequential relief to the appellants. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
