Exemption notification interpretation: Supreme Court upheld concessional excise duty coverage for C4 Raffinate and propylene.

The Supreme Court construed Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. to mean that concessional excise duty applied to liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, with only the gases expressly listed in the exclusion clause kept out. It accepted that the phrase "other than" qualified the stated exclusions and upheld the Tribunal's reading of the notification. On that construction, C4 Raffinate was not excluded even if treated as butylene, and was in any event covered as a liquefied petroleum gas; propylene was also covered for Indian Oil Corporation. The Department's challenge to classification and denial of exemption therefore failed, and the assessee obtained the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether C4 Raffinate and propylene were covered by Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. for concessional excise duty, and whether the department's classification and denial of exemption were sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the construction of the exemption entry covering "liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons other than natural gas, ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene." The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the words "other than" qualified natural gas and that the notification, read by its plain language, extended partial exemption to liquefied petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons, while specifically excluding only the stated gases. The Court also accepted that C4 Raffinate, even if treated as butylene, was not excluded from the notification and in any event was covered as a liquefied petroleum gas. For Indian Oil Corporation, the same notification applied to propylene as well.

Conclusion: The Department's appeals failed and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.

---