1994 (1) TMI 85 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court rules on non-compliance with Notification No. 25/70 for tax exemption

The Supreme Court held that the mixture manufactured by the appellant did not meet all the conditions outlined in Notification No. 25/70. It was ... Whether the mixed fertilisers manufactured and sold by the appellant under the trade-name, Vijay (N.P.K. 17-17-17) is entitled to the benefit of the said Notification No. 25/70 Held that:- It is not for us to say whether the mixture of fertilisers concerned in Coromandal Fertilisers is similar to the mixture manufactured by the appellant. It is sufficient to say that the mixture manufactured by the appellant does not satisfy all the conditions prescribed by the relevant Notification and that unless all the conditions are satisfied, the benefit does not flow. It was also admitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Explanation appended to the exemption Notification is not relevant herein. Appeals dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 25/70: Whether the mixed fertilizers manufactured by the appellant are entitled to the benefit of the said Notification.2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector: Whether the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to revise or revoke his earlier order.3. Compliance with Notification Conditions: Whether the appellant's product satisfies all the conditions prescribed by the relevant Notification.4. Relevance of Chemical Transformation: Whether the occurrence of chemical transformation during the mixing of fertilizers affects the applicability of the Notification.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 25/70The primary issue in these appeals was whether the mixed fertilizers manufactured and sold by the appellant under the trade-name Vijay (N.P.K. 17-17-17) are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 25/70. The Notification exempted 'mixed fertilizers, falling under Item No. 14HH of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 manufactured with the aid of power, from two or more fertilizers on all of which the appropriate amount of the duty of excise or, as the case may be, the additional duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1943 has already been paid, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.' The Assistant Collector initially refused the benefit on the ground that the mixed fertilizers (N.P.K.) manufactured by the appellant is not a mixture of two or more fertilizers as required by the Notification but a mixture of fertilizers and other ingredients.2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant CollectorThe appellant argued that once the Assistant Collector passed his order dated March 5, 1976, he became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to revise or revoke the said order thereafter. However, it was held that the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to rectify the error in his earlier order. Rule 173B(5) of the Central Excise Rules empowers the excise authorities to make necessary modifications affecting the rate of duty. Before revising his order, the Assistant Collector gave a notice to the appellant stating the grounds on which he proposed to revise and modify his earlier order.3. Compliance with Notification ConditionsThe Government of India's order dated February 18, 1976, dealt only with the aspect that chemical reaction or transformation, if any, taking place on the mixing of fertilizers is no ground to deny the benefit of the Notification. The order did not deal with any other condition specified in the exemption Notification. It was held that after the remand, it was the duty of the excise authorities to satisfy themselves that all the other conditions of the Notification are satisfied. The Assistant Collector found that the said mixture is not a mixture of two or more fertilizers alone and that more than one non-fertilizer agent goes into the manufacture of the said mixture.4. Relevance of Chemical TransformationThe Government of India, in its order, opined that the fact that chemical reaction takes place during the mixing of fertilizers is no ground for denying the benefit of the Notification. However, the Assistant Collector, in his subsequent order, reiterated that the Notification contemplates a mixture of two or more fertilizers wherein chemical transformation does not take place. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. v. Union of India concludes the issue against the appellant, stating that ammonia is not a fertilizer but falls within the purview of 'gases' mentioned under Tariff Item 14H, whereas fertilizers fall under Tariff Item 14HH.ConclusionThe Supreme Court held that the mixture manufactured by the appellant does not satisfy all the conditions prescribed by the relevant Notification. It was concluded that unless all the conditions are satisfied, the benefit does not flow. The appeals were dismissed with costs.