TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption on the ground that furnace oil was used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers. We find that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO. Versus COLLR. OF C. EX., VADODARA [2001 (1) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] which has settled the law, holding that furnace oil (LSHS) which are used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers cannot be considered as feed stock, hence we find that on merits assessee has no case. Period of limitation - Held that: - It is undisputed that the furnace oil procured by the assessee during the period in question at nil rate of duty, were supplied by the supplier based upon the CT-3 certificate issued by the jurisdictional Range office of respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nath, Asst. Commr (AR), for appellant Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against order-in-appeal No. P-III/301/05 dated 13.09.2005. Respondent has also filed a Cross Objection which is contesting the issue on limitation hence the said Cross Objection is also disposed of along with the appeal filed by Revenue by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether during the period September, 1999 to August 2004, the demand raised by Revenue on the appellant is sustainable or otherwise on the ground that furnace oil which was procured by assessee was not used as a feedstock and hence not el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice. He would draw our attention to the facts that the show-cause notice cum demand was issued on 29.09.2004 invoking extended period. On merits his submission is that post 2001, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. (supra) is against him. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that there is no dispute as to the fact the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and procured furnace oil during the period February 1999 to August 2004 at nil rate of duty under various notifications as enumerated in paragraph 3 herein above, claiming exemption on the ground that furnace oil was used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers. We find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y hit by limitation. In our view the demands raised beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of show-cause notice needs to be set aside and we do so on the ground of limitation. 6.3 The demands for the period within one year from the date of issuance of show-cause notice needs to be upheld and we do so and remit the matter back to adjudicating authority to requantify the amount of demand on furnace oil but within the period of limitation from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. 6.4 Since the entire issue is of interpretation of Notification and had to be settled by the Apex Court as also the demand for the extended period has been set aside on limitation, there is no reason for visiting the appellant with any pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
