9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in this appeal is regarding entitlement of the appellants of the benefit of one exemption Notification No. 181/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 vide which the urea if used as a fertiliser had been exempted from the whole of the excise duty and another Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 which provides concessional rate of duty on raw naptha when intended to be used in the manufacture of fertiliser and ammonia. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of urea fertiliser falling under Chapter Heading 3102 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act and are bringing raw naptha falling under Chapter Heading 2710.14 as per Chapter X Procedure at concessional rate for use in the manufacture of fertiliser. During the course of chec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. Chartered Accountants and the matter was duly reported to the Board of Directors and recorded in the Central Excise record after the same was written off by the Board. They gave the details of the losses during verification and percentages thereof in their reply yearwise from 1986-87 to 1991 as under : Financial year Production (MT) Shortage Percentage Remarks 1986-87 1,82,780 2,289.000 1.25 Written off 1987-88 1,68,057 379.660 0.23 by the Board 1988-89 1,63,106 36.033 00.02 of Directors 1989-90 1,53,007 1,230.457 0.80 in their 1990-91 25,255 Total Short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the demand has been raised by the Collector on the basis of assumptions and presumptions regarding the non-user of the urea as fertiliser. There is no evidence on the record to prove the clandestine removal of the urea from their factory premises for a use other than as fertiliser. They have also averred that the Collector had no evidence before him to hold that the raw naptha taken by them on concessional rate of duty was never intended to be used in the manufacture of fertiliser. Therefore, the impugned order passed by him is wholly illegal. 7. The learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has simply reiterated the correctness of the order of the Collector by contending that the deficiency found in the stock of urea at the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n doubted or disputed in the impugned order. 9. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that there had been any clandestine removal of urea from the factory premises for a purpose other than its use as a fertiliser. Even the Collector in the impugned order has nowhere opined that any document was ever found on checking the record which reflected the clandestine removal of the urea from the factory premises of the appellants for its use other than as a fertiliser. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, no presumption could be raised by the Collector for drawing the conclusion that the deficit urea had been used not as a fertiliser but for other purpose, so as to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 181/86, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
