9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Collector by his order dated 16-12-1989 confirmed 14 demands for the recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 2,55,27,664.51 on the grounds that LSHS used for the purpose of generation of steam not having been used as Feed-stock was not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) who while rejecting the appeal placed reliance on the Tribunal s order Nos. 834 to 839/86-C dated 17-12-1986 in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Fertilizer Corporation of India and held that the appellants were not eligible for the exemption in respect of `LSHS Oil used for the generation of steam since it could not be deemed as having been used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilisers. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri Dushyant Dave, learned advocate stated that the issue arising for consideration in the appeal had been settled against the assessee by the Tribunal s order No. 834-839/86-C dated 17-12-1986 in the case of CCE, Patna v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. which was followed by the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the generation or distribution of electrical energy would mean intended for use and not actual use and therefore cement sold for intended use in the generation or distribution of electrical energy was entitled to exemption. Shri Dave also cited judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and Allied Industries v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 (45) ECC 17 in which the High Court held that set-off in respect of purchase tax paid on furnace oil was admissible under Rule 42-A of Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 since heat treatment was key process in the manufacture of the end product and such process could not have been accomplished without the use of furnace oil. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1 v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (S.C.) = 1989 (19) ECC 49, the learned counsel submitted that the relevant notification has to be interpreted having regard to the object and purpose for which the exemption has been granted. 3. On behalf of the respondents Shri Somesh Arora, ld. JDR stated that the issue arising for consideration stands fully settled against the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product has to be deemed as feed stock . 5. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Collector (Appeals) was correct in holding that Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) falling under sub-heading 2713.50 used for generation of steam was not eligible for the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 75/84 dated 1-3-1984 (as amended by Notification No. 127/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988). 6. It is seen that the finding in the impugned order that Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) used for generation of steam was not be eligible for the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 (as amended) was based on the reasoning that use of LSHS for the generation of steam does not amount to use as `feedstock . In support of his finding the Collector (Appeals) referred to the Tribunal s order Nos. 834 to 839/86-C dated 17-12-1986 in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Fertilizer Corporation of India in which following the principles enunciated in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out or ignored on the ground that earlier this meaning was not set out in the show cause notice or figure at an early stage of the proceedings because meaning of an expression is often a subject for interpretation at different stages before the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and this interpretation has to be done in accordance with law having recourse to well accepted principles. 9. Shri Banerjee did not contend that if the meaning under glossary of terms of petroleum products be assigned to the expression feed stock used in the notification, then also it will merit exemption under the Notification. This apart, the Tribunal in Neyveli Lignite Corporation s case (supra) on which Shri Tripathi has placed reliance after referring to technical and other dictionary with reference to the very same notification, hold that the expression refers to raw material delivered to a machine for process. Following the principles enunciated this case FO/LSHS used for generation of steam cannot be held to be used as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers. In view of this decision of the Tribunal, the view of the Board holding use of FO/LSHS for generation of steam as used as feed st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that as per various technical and other dictionaries the term feed stock occurring in the notification could be deemed to be referring only to raw materials delivered to a machine for process. On the basis of this finding it was held that use of furnace oil etc. in the generation of steam could not be deemed as use in the manufacture of fertilizers. We find that Notification No. 352/77, dated 16-12-1977 which was required to be interpreted in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) provided for exemption of Petroleum Products falling under Item Nos. 6 to 11A of the First Schedule, produced in refineries were exempted provided they were utilized as fuel within the same premises for the production or manufacture of other petroleum products. It is well settled that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and language of the notification. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned Departmental Representative that in view of the difference in the wordings of the Notification 147/74-C.E., dated 30-10-1974 and Notification No. 352/77-C.E., dated 16-12-1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion to be decided is whether LSHS used by the appellants for generation of steam could be deemed as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 75/84 which exempts LSHS intended for use as `feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers. In arriving at his finding that LSHS used for the generation of steam was not eligible for exemption under the said notification, the Collector (Appeals) relied upon the Tribunal s order No. 834 to 839/86-C dated 17-12-1986 which followed the principle laid down in Tribunal s order in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (supra) that the term `feed stock occurring in the notification has to be deemed as referring to raw materials delivered to a machine for process. In our view the case law cited by the appellants is not relevant since none of the judgments relate to the examination of the scope of any notification exempting any goods subject to the condition requiring their use as `feed stock and also in view of the fact that each notification is to be interpreted strictly according to its language and there can be no room for intendment. 10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
