Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Versus Rama Krishi Rasayan

2016 (11) TMI 1341 - CESTAT MUMBAI

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 eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notifications No.5/1999, 6/2000, 3/2001 and 6/2002? - period of limitation - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and procured furnace oil during the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 respondent asseessee. The Range Office is required to issue the CT-3 certificate after verifying the claim as to a re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice needs to be set aside and we do so on the ground of limitation. - 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 re-quantify the amount of demand on furnace oil but within the period of limitation from the date of issuance of show-cause notice - Since the entire issue is of interpretation of Notification and had to be settled by the Apex Court as also the dem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 ot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st appellate authority set aside the demands holding that the steam generated by consuming furnace oil is used for the manufacture of fertilizer. 4. Learned D.R. would draw our attention to the facts of the case. He would submit that the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. - 2001 (128) ELT 13 has categorically held that exemption under various Notifications to furnace oil used as fuel cannot be extended as they are not used as feed stock. He would submit that the dem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d stock can be restricted by the show-cause notice upto one year from the date of issue of show-cause notice. 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 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

at 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. 6.1 In view of the judgment of Apex Court, Revenue s appeal needs to be allowed and we allow the appeal of Revenue that furnace oil which is used as feed stock cannot be considered as feed stock and assessee respondent is not eligible for benefit of notification. 6.2 As regards the demands raised beyond the period of one year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version