1999 (7) TMI 372 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 74/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 regarding the use of furnace oil and Heavy Petroleum Stock (HPS) in the manufacture of fertilizer.
2. Determination of whether the inputs are used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizer.
3. Consideration of the benefit of Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 for concessional rate of duty.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 74/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984
The appellants claimed the benefit of the notification for using furnace oil and HPS as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizer. The dispute arose when the benefit was denied for the inputs used in the manufacture of methanol and for steam generation. The appellant argued that methanol is an intermediate product crucial for obtaining pure Hydrogen necessary for ammonia production, which is a key component in fertilizer manufacturing. The use of furnace oil and HPS in the steam generation process was also emphasized as integral to the overall fertilizer production process.

Issue 2: Determination of inputs as feed stock
The appellant contended that furnace oil and HPS were indeed used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizer, citing the integrated nature of the manufacturing process. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision recognizing the importance of certain inputs like raw naphtha in processes related to fertilizer production. However, a previous Tribunal decision was cited where low sulphur heavy stock used for steam generation was not considered as feed stock for fertilizer production. Ultimately, the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's argument that furnace oil and HPS qualified as feed stock for fertilizer manufacturing.

Issue 3: Benefit of Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984
The Notification provided for a concessional rate of duty if furnace oil and HPS were intended for use other than as feed stock in fertilizer manufacturing. The Tribunal determined that since the appellants were indeed using these inputs in the manufacture of fertilizer, they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty as prescribed in the Notification. The appeals were disposed of based on this interpretation, affirming the entitlement of the appellants to the concessional rate of duty for their usage of furnace oil and HPS in fertilizer production.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, highlights the key issues, arguments presented by the parties, relevant legal precedents, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.