TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods not to use them as fertilizer, the exemption shall not be available to such goods. In other words, if goods are clearly intended to be used as fertilizers at the time of clearance the exemption would be available. Since, in this case, there was no such intention of not using the goods as fertilizerand goods were cleared with clear intention to be used a fertilizer then mere fact that certain quantity of urea was not used as fertilizer due to loss in transportation, re-bagging and standardization, it would not mean that such urea was not intended to be used as fertilizer. Further, I find that there is no indication in the notification that urea should be actually used as fertilizer for benefit of said notification. The department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izers. It is the case of the Revenue that during the relevant period in question, fertilizers were cleared availing the benefit of exemption notification but some part of the fertilizers were lost in transit and such loss is not covered under the benefit of notification as the fertilizers were not used for intended purpose. 4. We do not agree with the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and as also articulated by the Ld. DR for simple reason that on reading of the notifications, we find that there are no conditions and the exemption is unconditional. 5. We would like to reproduce the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent: On perusal of language of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -211-ELT 44 (Tribunal-Bang) wherein it held that in absence of end-use condition in the relevant notification, the benefit of concession of duty can not be denied, as the word for use in textile industry/required for textile industry cannot be interpreted narrowly to mean that they should be actually used in the textile industry. Further, Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Food, Fats Fertilizers Ltd., observed that exemption under Notification No. 118/75-CE was available to the goods falling under item 68 if it was intended for use in the factory of the manufacture or in other factory of the same manufacturer. However, in the particular case after removal of the goods without payment of duty they were lost due to destruction of fire. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es cited above has clearly viewed that expression to be used would mean intended to be used, i.e., if the goods are not intended to be used fertilizer the exemption shall not be available. Since, in this case, there was no such intention and goods were cleared with clear intention to be used a fertilizer then mere fact that certain quantity of urea was not used as fertilizer due to loss in transportation, re-bagging and standardization, it would not mean that such urea was not intended to be used as fertilizer. Further, I find that there is no indication in the notification that urea should be actually used as fertilizer for benefit of said notification. The department contention that impugned goods must be actually used as fertilizer is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
