Just a moment...
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 ammonia used in the manufacture of molten urea for captive use in the manufacture of melamine was eligible for exemption or concessional duty under the notifications meant for ammonia used in the manufacture of fertilizer.
Analysis: The notifications were construed strictly and their benefit was held to depend on the ultimate use of ammonia in the manufacture of fertilizer. The fact that molten urea was claimed to be classifiable under Chapter 31 did not by itself determine eligibility, because Chapter Notes 1 and 2 of Chapter 31 apply only to mineral or chemical fertilizers, and the record did not establish molten urea as a fertilizer in trade understanding. Since molten urea was only an intermediate product in the continuous process leading to melamine, and melamine was not a fertilizer, the end product requirement in the notifications was not satisfied. The classification of molten urea was also noted to be open to reconsideration, but that question was not ative for the exemption claim.
Conclusion: The notifications did not apply and the exemption or concessional duty claim was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification granting benefit for ammonia used in the manufacture of fertilizer applies only where the ammonia is ultimately used for producing fertilizer, and not where it is consumed in making an intermediate product leading to a non-fertilizer final product.