9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal"] dated 14th September, 2000 in Appeal Nos. E/R-302/95 and 38/96. [2001 (136) ELT 425 (Tribunal) ]. 2. The appeals were initially heard by a two Member Bench of the Tribunal. Member (Judicial) had taken the view denying the benefit of Notification No. 191/87-CE dated 4th August, 1987 to the assessee, on the other hand, Member (Technical) took the view that benefit of the said notification or the subsequent Notification No. 7/94-CE dated 1st March, 1994 which superseded the earlier notification, was available to the assessee. In view of difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical), the matter was referred to the Umpire (a third Member). 3. The third Member agreed with the reasoning given by the Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said schedule. Provided that where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production, the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said Rules is followed." 5. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of explosives classifiable under sub-heading 3602.00 in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee supplied the explosives manufactured by it to M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , the public sector undertakings owned by the Government of India which, in turn, were using the explosives for blasting mines to extract copper, zinc and lead ores which are further used in the manufacture of zinc and lead concentrates. In terms of the proviso to the notification, the benefit of the notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue in the present case was again raised and considered in the context of this very exemption Notification (No. 191/87- CE) by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2001 (127) ELT 438 (T-Del.)]. The Tribunal relying upon the judgments of this Court in Indian Copper Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1965(16) STC 259 (S.C.)] and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1996 (86) RLT 177], held that the explosives used for blasting ores in the mines are used in the manufacture of zinc concentrates and copper concentrates respectively and, therefore, eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 191/87-CE. 8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e [2005 ELT 266 para 5] which was followed subsequently in the case of M/s. Vishal Malleables Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [C.A. No. 2363/2001 decided on 19th January, 2006]. The revenue having accepted the principle laid down in Hindustan Zinc case (supra) to the effect that extraction of zinc and ore is an important and integrated process in the manufacture of zinc and lead concentrates and therefore the explosives used in mining operation are to be treated as used in the manufacture of zinc concentrates for the purpose of satisfying the conditions prescribed in Notification No.191/87, cannot be permitted to take a stand other than the principle laid down in the said case. 11. This apart, the view taken by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
