Feed stock exemption denied where fuel was used only for drying raw materials, not as a manufacturing input.

Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used only to dry rock phosphate and gypsum was held not to qualify as feed stock used in the manufacture of fertilizer. The Tribunal applied the ordinary meaning of feed stock as the primary raw material introduced for processing, and found that the relevant fertilizer inputs were rock phosphate and gypsum, while LSHS was merely a consumable used in drying and did not become part of the finished product. On that basis, the exemption was denied and the duty demand was sustained. The penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was also upheld because no sufficient ground was shown to interfere with it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used for drying rock phosphate and gypsum could be treated as feed stock used in the manufacture of fertilizer so as to qualify for exemption under the relevant notifications. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules required interference.

Issue (i): Whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock used for drying rock phosphate and gypsum could be treated as feed stock used in the manufacture of fertilizer so as to qualify for exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The exemption covered furnace oil and heavy petroleum stock, including LSHS, intended for use as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizer, subject to proof of such use and compliance with the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal adopted the dictionary meaning of feed stock as the primary raw material introduced for processing. On that footing, the raw materials for fertilizer were rock phosphate and gypsum, and LSHS was only consumed in drying them. It was not itself processed into fertilizer or become a component of the finished product. Following its earlier view on similar facts, the Tribunal held that such use did not amount to use as feed stock for the manufacture of fertilizer.

Conclusion: The exemption was not admissible and duty was correctly demanded; the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules required interference.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had imposed penalty under the relevant rule, and no persuasive ground was advanced to disturb that finding. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was sustained; the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal succeeded, the exemption claim failed, and the duty demand with penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A material used only for drying raw materials in the manufacturing process does not constitute feed stock for manufacture where it is neither itself processed into the finished product nor becomes a component of that product.

---