1982 (9) TMI 232 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on sulphuric acid under Rule 9(2) and penalty imposition by the Collector of Central Excise.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 81/75 for exemption from excise duty on sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertilizers.
3. Justification for the penalty imposed by the Collector.
4. Compliance with Chapter X procedures for supplies to sister concerns.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the duty demand on sulphuric acid and the penalty imposed by the Collector. The Collector contended that the sulphuric acid in question was not exempt under Notification No. 81/75 as it was used for obtaining sodium hexameta phosphate, which is independently excisable and used for water treatment, not fertilizer manufacture. The Collector also noted misstatements regarding the use of sulphuric acid and non-compliance with Chapter X procedures for supplies to sister concerns.

2. The appellants argued that the sulphuric acid was used for manufacturing sodium hexameta phosphate, essential for water treatment in fertilizer production, thus qualifying for the exemption under Notification No. 81/75. They contended that RT-12 returns clearly indicated the nature of acid use, making Rule 9 inapplicable. They also claimed that Rules 10 and 10A did not apply, and the duty demand was time-barred. The penalty imposed was deemed unjustified.

3. During the hearing, the Advocate highlighted the exemption under Notification No. 81/75 for sulphuric acid used in fertilizer manufacture. The appellants converted sulphuric acid into sodium hexameta phosphate for water treatment, a crucial step in fertilizer production. They argued that the Collector's decision was incorrect and unjustified, urging the orders be set aside.

4. The Board acknowledged the use of sulphuric acid in manufacturing sodium hexameta phosphate for water treatment essential in fertilizer production. The acid's use in the appellants' factory qualified for the exemption under Notification No. 81/75. The Board found the duty demand untenable and time-barred, considering the RT-12 returns and assessments. However, for supplies to sister concerns, adherence to Chapter X procedures was necessary for exemption eligibility. The Board directed a reconsideration of duty recovery for sister concern supplies based on procedural compliance and accounting verification.

5. As there was no evidence of duty evasion or wilful misstatement, the penalty orders were deemed unsustainable and set aside. The Board concluded that the duty demand on sulphuric acid for fertilizer production was unwarranted, and compliance with Chapter X procedures was crucial for exemption eligibility for supplies to sister concerns.