9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of urea fertilizer which is chargeable to nil rate of duty. For the manufacture of urea, the applicants have purchased raw naphtha from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 75/84-C.E. Certain quantities of raw naphtha purchased by the applicants was used in the generation of steam and electricity which were further used in the manufacture of ammonia and urea within the factory. Action was initiated against the applicants to deny the concessional rate of duty for the quantity of raw naphtha used in the generation of steam and electricity for further use in the manufacture of urea on the ground that such use of raw naphtha cannot be treated as use in the manufacture of urea in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the applicants from IOC is clearly intended for use in the manufacture of urea. The aforesaid term cannot be interpreted to mean actual use. This submission is fully supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. reported at 1988 (14) ECR 292. (E) Without pre judice to the above, assuming without admitting that raw naphtha used in the generation of steam and electricity will not be entitled to the concessional rate of duty under the two notifications referred to above, it is submitted that the entire quantity of 93595.409 KL of raw naphtha procured by the appellants cannot be denied the said concession. Duty of the aforesaid total quantity of raw naphtha procured, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded. He would further pray that the suitable directions may also be issued to the Commissioner so that CT 2 certificate may continue to be issued even for the quantity utilised in the generation of steam and electricity and for this purpose they are prepared to give a bank guarantee. 4. Ld. DR stated that in an identical matter, the stay application was heard and by stay order No. 18/97-C, dated 8-4-1997, the appellants were required to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The matter being identical and the dispute being on the same issue and the same party, similar order may be passed. 5. In response ld. Advocate fairly agreed with this suggestion but added in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding to its logical conclusion, he should have dropped the demand in respect of the quantity admittedly used directly and regards which no dispute survived. Hence taking into consideration the figures mentioned by the appellants in the stay application and not disputed by the department at this stage, the assessee was at best required to deposit Rs. 1,94,47,035 mentioned in the Paragraph 4E of the stay application. In so far as the balance amount is concerned, we grant full unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the pendency of appeal, taking into account, inter alia, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Fertilizer Corpn. Ltd. as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177. We also further note that prima faci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
