TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether benefit of Notification No. 66/94-Cus. dated 1-3-1994 could be denied on the ground that the certificate accompanying the import was issued by a Dy. Advisor in the Ministry of Fertilisers and on the premise that the imported equipment related to a sulphuric acid plant within a fertilizer plant.
Analysis: The exemption depended on the import being for renovation or modernisation of a fertilizer plant and on certification by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Secretary. The clarification from the Ministry that the Dy. Advisor was equivalent to Dy. Secretary was accepted by the first appellate authority in compliance with the earlier remand, and that approach was held to be correct. The objection that the goods were for a sulphuric acid plant was rejected because sulphuric acid formed an integral part of fertilizer manufacture and the plant was situated within the fertilizer plant. Support was also drawn from Circular No. 18/96-Cus. dated 26-3-1996, which clarified that the expression fertilizer plant covered units engaged in producing intermediate products for captive consumption.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 66/94-Cus., and the Revenue's appeal failed.
TaxTMI 
