Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur Versus M/s. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.

2016 (8) TMI 935 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of differential duty - fertilizers cleared by them by availing the notification no. 6/02-CE dated 01/03/2002 and Notification No. 4/06-CE dated 1/3/2006 during the period 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 but some part of the fertilizers were lost in transit and were not used as fertilizers - Held that:- the notification grants exemption to all goods other than those which are not to be used as fertilizer, i.e., exemption is provided in the negative way. The literal meaning of the notification would .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as 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 not correct. The benefit of notification to urea for use in fertilizer has to be decided at the t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Decided against the Revenue - Excise Appeal No. 2731/2008-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 52941/2016 - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Technical) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the appellant Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 220(DK)CE/JPR-I/2008 dated 6.11.2008. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, we find t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or for production of endused certificate. In case of Preet Chattons {1996-86 ELT 60}, the Hon ble Tribunal while deciding whether exemption under Notification No. 224/85 was available to import of embellishment for use in the leather industry, held that the expression for use should be construed to mean intended for use and not actual use. The said observation of Tribunal was based on Supreme Court order in case of State of Haryana V/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. -1998(14) ECR 292 (SC) wherein it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns Garments Finishing Equip. P. Ltd. {2007-211-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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods for other purpose. The goods at the time they were removed from the place of production where intended for use in the manner specified in the notification and therefore, the department is not justified for denying exemption to goods lost in fire. In the present case, the manufactured urea was cleared at the time of clearance for use as fertilizer. However, during transit, some quantity of urea to be used as fertilizer was lost due to transportation, re-bagging and standardization. The quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

intention at the time of clearance of the 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. The Hon ble Tribunal in the cases 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 cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version