TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether sulphuric acid used for demineralisation of water, which was in turn used for generating steam for manufacture of fertiliser, satisfied the condition in Notification No. 81/75-C.E. for exemption as sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertiliser. (ii) Whether the cross-objections filed by the respondents were maintainable.
Issue (i): Whether sulphuric acid used for demineralisation of water, which was in turn used for generating steam for manufacture of fertiliser, satisfied the condition in Notification No. 81/75-C.E. for exemption as sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertiliser.
Analysis: The exemption under the notification depended on whether the acid was used in the manufacture of fertiliser. The acid was not consumed directly in the final product, but it was used in an essential intermediate process, namely demineralisation of water, and the treated water was used to produce steam required for manufacture of urea fertiliser. The Tribunal treated this as an indirect but integral use in the manufacturing process and followed its earlier view that a material used in an essential stage of manufacture can satisfy the notification condition.
Conclusion: The condition in the notification was satisfied and the exemption was available to the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the cross-objections filed by the respondents were maintainable.
Analysis: The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) was entirely in favour of the respondents, so there was no adverse part requiring a cross-objection. The cross-objections were also treated as time-barred and were in the nature of comments supporting the appeal rather than a proper challenge to the order.
Conclusion: The cross-objections were not maintainable and were dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, the exemption claim was upheld, and the connected cross-objections were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A material used in an essential intermediate stage of the manufacturing chain may be regarded as used in the manufacture of the final product for the purpose of an exemption notification, even if it does not enter the final product directly.
TaxTMI 
