9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise duty of Rs. 19,38,716.50, Appeal No. E/2051/89 arises from order-in-appeal No. GSM/183/89-BD, dated 1st June, 1989 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Under these orders the appellants were held to be liable to pay duty on ammonia used by them in the manufacture of urea which was, in turn, cleared for use other than as fertiliser. Benefit of Notification No. 40/85 was held to be not admissible, the same being admissible only for ammonia used in the manufacture of fertilisers. It was further held by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara in his order impugned in the first-mentioned appeal that their alternative claim for the benefit of exemption under Notification 217/86 for the period prior to 1-3-1990 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than as fertilisers are not eligible for the benefit of Notification 40/85. This view taken in the impugned orders is the correct one. An exemption Notification is to be construed strictly. He pleaded that the appeals be dismissed. 4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We have perused the record. The order in original passed by Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara which is impugned in the first-mentioned appeal relies upon the Tribunal decision in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 257 wherein it was held that benefit of Notification 145/71, dated 26-7-1971 and Notification 40/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 is not available to ammonia extracted from Raw Naphtha for manufacture of molten urea ultimately not used for manufacture of fertilis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een raised before the Collector (Appeals) and not considered by him. However, since the applicability of the said Notification is a question of law, this plea raised in the appeal is considered by us. 6. We find that in the order in original passed by Collector it has been mentioned that the benefit of exemption under Notification 217/86 had been allowed by the proper officer by approving the classification list for the period subsequent to 1-3-1990. Their plea that the approval of classification list subsequent to 1-3-1990 must apply to the period covered by the show cause notice had been rejected only on the ground that they had not filed classification list for such period. We find that the Tribunal decision relied upon in coming to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
