9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.V. Doshi, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Talajia, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed against the decision of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Surat made in File No. 20/MP/90/Addl. Collr/SRT, dated 16-10-1990 whereunder appellant was denied the exemption claimed by the appellant in terms of Notification No. 81/75. 2. Facts of the case are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the present appeal. 3. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant argued that the Notification under consideration viz. 81/75 provides for the following words "intended for use in the manufacture of fertilisers" therefore argued that in terms of proviso, the Assistant Collector has only to get himself satisfied that the sulphuric acid has been so used and further he stated that in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority that the appellants are not entitled to the exemption. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. The Notification under dispute is Notification No. 81/75 which is in paper book at Page No. 14 which reads as under :- "Exemption to sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertilisers : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Notification No. 187/61 SAIL was entitled to the benefit of the said notification. The words used in Notification 187/61 and the Notification No. 81/75 are similar. I, therefore, following the said ratio of decision in Steel Authority of India (supra) hold the case in favour of the appellants and set aside the order-in-original. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
