TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the manufacture of fertilizers. The receipt of Naphtha from NRL through the depots of BPCL is evidenced by the Registers maintained at the end of OCFL. The use of naphtha received in the manufacture of fertilizers is evidenced from such registers. This also stands certified by the Jurisdictional Superintendent after verification of such records. The correlation of the supplies made by the NRL, which was accompanied by invoices of BPCL, also stands established on the basis of stock statement prepared by BPCL. Since the receipt of Naphtha in OCFL and use thereof for manufacture of fertilizer are established, we are of the view that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 22) cannot be denied to NRL. Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of condition number 4 5 of the said Notification. Upto 03.09.2004, when the Warehousing Provisions were available, NRL was clearing Naphtha to OCFL without payment of duty through BPCL as Warehouse to Warehouse transfer. After the withdrawal of the Warehousing facilities they cleared Naphtha to OCFL on payment of duty. After such clearances, NRL claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 22) and filed refund claim for the duty paid during the period from 4.9.2004 to 30.09.2004. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority vide his dated 30.08.2008 and also by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Impugned Order. Appeal No. E/330/2010 has been filed by NRL against the rejection of the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, is followed. 5. As per the above conditions the benefit of Naptha at Nil rate of duty will be available under the said Notification subject to satisfaction of the procedure laid down in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules ( Rules for short), 2001. This condition is required to be satisfied in view of the fact that the use of Naphtha for manufacture of fertilizers is in a place outside NRL. 6. M/s. NRL is represented by Shri Ravi Raghavan, Adv. and Revenue is represented by Shri T. Mondal, AC (AR). 7. With the above background, heard both sides. The arguments on behalf of NRL are summarised below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification at the recipient s factory. (v) NRL have also provided the stock statement prepared by BPCL for the goods received from NRL and subsequently cleared to OCFL. Such statement have been prepared and checked on the basis of registers maintained by BPCL. (vi) Finally he submitted that since there is no dispute that the conditions of the Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 22) stands satisfied, the benefit of notification cannot be denied. (vii) In respect of the appeal No. E/408/2011 filed by the Department, for the subsequent period, the Lower Authorities have extended the benefit of nil rate of duty and granted the refund on the basis of similar verification by the juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al period from 4.9.2004 to 30.09.2004 being Appeal No. E/330/2010. However, for the refund claim for the subsequent period from 19.01.2005 to 30.01.2005, stands allowed and the same is challenged by Revenue in Appeal No. E/408/2011. 11. The conditions specified in the Sl. No. 22 of the Notification No. 6/2002-CE are meant to ensure that Naphtha cleared from Refinery and received in the other factory is used in the manufacture of fertilizers. Towards this purpose various conditions as prescribed in the Rules for required to be satisfied. Though the lower authorities, in the initial period have held that the conditions as per Rules have not been satisfied, there is no dispute to the fact that Naphtha received by OCFL have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
