Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether catalyst imported for use in a fertilizer plant was covered by Notification No. 16/2000-Cus and whether the importer was entitled to refund of duty paid on denial of exemption.
Analysis: The notification exempted machinery, instruments, apparatus and appliances, parts, and raw materials for manufacture of those items, as well as spare parts and consumables required for renovation, modernisation or maintenance of a fertilizer plant. The condition attached to the exemption required a certificate from the Department of Fertilizers only to certify techno-economic clearance, recommend exemption for the specified goods, and confirm that the goods were required for the stated purpose. The catalyst in question was a chemical used to initiate a chemical reaction and was not machinery, apparatus, appliances, parts, or raw materials for their manufacture. The exemption notification had to be construed strictly at the threshold stage of eligibility, and the departmental certificate could not enlarge the scope of the notification.
Conclusion: The catalyst was not eligible for exemption under the notification, and the refund claim based on such exemption was not maintainable.