Exemption for benzene used in B.H.C. technical disputed over buyer entitlement and procurement-based objections.

Benzene used in the manufacture of B.H.C. technical was considered for exemption under Notification No. 276/67 on the footing that B.H.C. technical and its formulations were used as insecticides and pesticides, so the input could fall within the notification. One view also held that the objection based on procurement from a declared refinery could not be raised against the appellants without giving them an opportunity to respond. The contrary view treated the exemption claim as belonging to the manufacturer of benzene, not the buyer, and therefore denied the appellants entitlement to refund or concession under the notification. The text records differing views on entitlement to exemption and refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether benzene used in the manufacture of B.H.C. technical was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 276/67, and whether the claim could be denied on the basis of the source of procurement and the identity of the claimant.

Analysis: One view held that B.H.C. technical and its formulations were used as insecticides and pesticides, so benzene used for that purpose fell within Notification No. 276/67; it also held that the objection regarding procurement from a declared refinery could not be raised against the appellants without giving them an opportunity to answer it. The contrary view held that the exemption claim belonged to the manufacturer of benzene and not to the buyer, and therefore the appellants were not entitled to claim refund or concession under the notification.

Conclusion: The members differed on the appellants' entitlement to the exemption and refund, with one view allowing the appeal and the other rejecting it.

---