9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1943 has already been paid, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon." There was an Explanation appended to the said Notification but since it is not relevant for the present purposes, it need not be quoted or referred to. A reading of the Notification shows that excise duty was waived in full in respect of "mixed fertilisers falling under Item 14HH" which is manufactured "from two or more fertilisers on all of which the appropriate amount of duty of excise or as the case may be additional duty" has already been paid. The question in these appeals is whether the mixed fertilisers manufactured and sold by the appellant under the trade-name, Vijay (N.P.K. 17-17-17) is entitled to the benefit of the said Notification. 3. The Assistant Collector refused the benefit of the said Notification to the appellant on the ground that the mixed fertilisers (N.P.K.) manufactured by the appellant is not a mixture of two or more fertilisers as required by the Notification but a mixture of fertilisers and other ingredients. He found that N.P.K. is a combination of urea, muriate of potash, phosphoric acid, ammonia fillers and coating agents. Moreover, he held, the ammonium phosphate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - presumably because, the appellate order (which was the subject matter of challenge before the Government of India) dealt only with one ground viz., occurring of chemical reaction/transformation during the course of mixing of fertilizers by the appellant, yielding a new product ammonium phosphate. 5. Pursuant to the orders of the Government of India, the Assistant Collector, by his order dated March 5, 1976, extended the benefit of the Notification to the appellant's product - Vijay N.P.K. 17-17-17 - subject to the condition that the appellant pays the duty on the components. Within a few months, however, the Assistant Collector appears to have realised that he committed a mistake in extending the benefit of the Notification to the appellant's fertiliser mixture and accordingly issued a show cause notice on June 7, 1976 calling upon the appellant to show cause why the benefit of the Notification be not denied to him for the reasons stated therein. The show cause notice set out these grounds for the action proposed therein : urea is not used as an independent base fertiliser in the manufacture of the fertiliser mixture (Vijay N.P.K. 17-17-17) by the petitioner. Duty on urea is pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assistant Collector's order dated January 7, 1977 is based on the only ground which had been negatived by the Government of India in its order dated 18-2-1976. So far as merits are concerned, the Division Bench held that the decision of this Court in Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1985 (1) SCR 523 = 1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (SC)] concludes the issue against the appellant. The Division Bench further observed that it was open to the Assistant Collector to rectify the mistake committed by him in his order dated 5-3-1976 and that the contention that he has no jurisdiction to do so is unacceptable. The correctness of the order of the Division Bench is assailed in these appeals. 8. Sri Uttam Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged the following contentions : 1. The order of the Assistant Collector dated March 5, 1976 is in implementation of the order of the Government of India dated February 18, 1976. Once the Assistant Collector passed the said order he became functus officio. He had no jurisdiction to revise or revoke the said order thereafter. Even otherwise, it is clear that the order of the Assistant Collector dated January 7, 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al with any other condition specified in the exemption Notification. It would, therefore, not be reasonable to read the said order as holding finally that the fertiliser mixture manufactured by the petitioner satisfies all the conditions of the said Notification. Nor are we prepared to accede to the learned counsel's contention that the remitting of the matter to the lower authorities was confined only to verification of payment of duty on fertilisers going into the manufacture of said mixture. The contention of the learned counsel does not even stand to logic. The payment of duty on components is also a condition of the Notification just as the other condition that the mixture to become entitled to benefit of exemption should be a mixture of fertilisers alone. There is nothing in the order of the Government of India to indicate that it contemplated verification of only one condition or one condition of a particular nature. On the contrary, it spoke of "conditions" of the Notification being satisfied. When the Government of India remitted the matter to the lower authorities to grant exemption if the conditions of the Notification are satisfied, it necessarily meant the conditions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Coromandal Fertilisers that ammonia is not a fertiliser but falls within the purview of "gases" mentioned under Tariff Item 14H, whereas fertilisers fall under Tariff Item 14HH. In view of the said judgment it can no longer be contended by the appellant that ammonia (which is one of the chemicals used to manufacture N.P.K.) is a fertiliser. Sri Uttam Reddy requested that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to establish that ammonia is also a fertiliser. We do not think we can accede to the said request. The show-cause notice issued in January 7, 1977 did expressly put the appellant on notice specifically that some of the raw materials like ammonia and phosphoric acid are not fertilisers. The final orders stated the said fact more clearly. In any event, in view of the decision of this Court in Coromandal it is not open either to the appellant or to any authority to say that ammonia is a fertiliser - more so when the judgment of this Court is based upon the Tariff entries themselves. 12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon para 11 of the judgment in Coromandal Fertilisers. It appears that the counsel for Coromandal Fertilisers referred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
