1998 (2) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Departmental Appeal against Order of Collector (Appeals) allowing benefit of Notification No. 43/88-C.E. to assessee for using Phosphorous Trichloride as intermediate product for pesticides manufacturing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Notification Interpretation:
The Department argued that the Collector (Appeals) wrongly allowed the assessee's appeal for availing benefits under Notification No. 43/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Department contended that the Notification exempted goods specified in the Annexure for items under Chapters 28, 29, or 72 of CETA, 1985, to be used in manufacturing pesticides falling under Chapter 38. The Department emphasized that since the assessee was not manufacturing goods under Chapter 38, they were not entitled to full exemption under the said Notification.

2. Interpretation of Technical Processes:
The Tribunal referred to a previous order concerning the same party, where it was established that the assessee used Phosphorous Trichloride in the manufacture of Tri-Methyl Phosphite, an intermediate product for pesticides under Chapter 38. The Tribunal noted the technical process involved in manufacturing pesticides and intermediate products, emphasizing that the conversion of white/yellow phosphorous into intermediates before the final product emerged should not be a ground for denying benefits under the Notification. The Tribunal highlighted that all intermediate and final products were claimed to be pesticides falling under Chapter 38. Therefore, the benefit could not be denied solely based on the technical process involved.

3. Application of Precedent and Dismissal of Appeal:
Based on the similarity of facts with the previous order and the established use of Phosphorous Trichloride in manufacturing Tri-Methyl Phosphite for pesticides falling under Chapter 38, the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental Appeal. The Tribunal followed the precedent set in the previous order and concluded that the benefit under the Notification should not be denied to the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the interpretation of the Notification, technical processes involved in manufacturing, and the application of precedent in dismissing the Departmental Appeal.