TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (1) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r KL (the duty leviable on oil not so used was then ₹ 100 per KL). Availing of the exemption was subjected to the two provisos : - "(i) It is proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that such Furnace Oil is so used, and (ii) The procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is followed." 2.  On 29-7-1976 Fertilizer Corporation of India applied to the jurisdictional Asst. Collector in form A.L. 6 as the first step in availing of the facility under this notification under the Chapter X procedure. A licence in Form A.L. 6 was granted to Fertilizer Corporation of India on 28-8-1976 and Fertilizer Corporation of India executed the necessary bond on 30-8-1976. Thereafter, they Jot, what is referred to in the department as the C.T. 2 certificate. This certificate indicates the fact that Fertilizer Corporation of India is permitted to receive specified excisable goods for use in an industrial process from any manufacturer of such goods either at a concessional rate of duty, or without payment of duty, as the case may be, in terms of any specific notification issued by the Government. 3. The appellant clearanced 82....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany (1981 ECR 297D) but when we pointed out that we cannot be guided by a decision of the Government in such matters, he did not press the issue. 6.  Elaborating, Shri Hidayatulla argued that the second proviso to the notification requires that the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. 1944 should be followed. Going over the Rules in that Chapter one by one, he claimed that Rule 192 is not a rule of procedure but a requirement regarding certain licensing. The procedure is really contained in Rules 193 and 194. So far as the present goods are concerned, the provisions of other Rules of that Chapter are not relevant. The essence of the procedure is contained in Rule 194 which provides for accountal of the goods received for industrial purposes. Such accountal is available from the records of the Fertilizer Corporation of India and has been made available by the appellant firm to the Department. 7. Shri N.K. Pattekar, the learned Departmental Representative contested the claim. He drew our attention to the Heading of Form B-8 being bond to be executed by a licensee to enable him to obtain excisable products at concessional or nil rates of duty. He sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods on which duty is payable would be entitled to the concession ? It is not for him to determine or regulate in what manner the goods should be used by a purchaser for consideration. He could be satisfied if the purchaser holds out a certificate given by the department itself entitling him to the concession. This certificate is the C.T. 2 certificate referred to earlier. The issue of the said certificate which, amongst other things, indicates the entitlement of the holder to get the goods at a concessional rate and also the approximate quantity that could be so obtained, is only after satisfaction by the Collector that the purchaser is otherwise qualified under the Act. To do so, the purchaser has to satisfy the Collector as to the intended use of the goods, the manner in which they will actually be used, the storage of the goods on receipt from the manufacturer and offer appropriate security in the form of a bond for due observance of the conditions regarding use of the goods etc. The requirements set out in Rule 192 are thus not formal in character. They have to be satisfied for a determination by the Collector that the applicant for the concession could be allowed to avail of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot, the Court held, make any difference to the entitlement of the manufacturer to the concessional rate of duty. The facts of this case are obviously different from the present one where verification is not with reference to an existing fact but a factual position that would emerge after the clearance of the goods-their use in an approved manner. Such use is subject to monitoring both through maintenance of accounts and physical checks. We, therefore, do not consider that the decision of the Allahabad High Court is applicable to the facts of the present case. 10.  In the case of Zenith Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., v. K.K. Verma & Others - 1979 E.L.T. (J 618) proforma credit was claimed from the date of inclusion of extruded sheets and sections of aluminium to the concession, by the issue of a notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, for purposes of Rule 56A. In their orders in Revision, the Government of India allowed the benefit to be given from the date of application for the benefit of proforma credit procedure rather than from the date of actual grant of permission to avail of the procedure by the Assistant Collector. Before His Lordship of the Bombay High Court,....