Intended-use exemption for naphtha: substantive compliance preserved concession despite venting, low-load operation, and procedural lapse.

Exemption under Notification No. 75/84-C.E. was available where raw naphtha was fed into the plant for manufacture of fertilizer-related products, even if supervening operational constraints led to venting or low-load consumption, and the benefit also extended to ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer product. Under Notification No. 27/89-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 102/90, concessional treatment was available for raw naphtha used through the synthesis gas route, and a technical lapse in separate L-6 permission did not defeat the substantive benefit where the conditions were substantially met. Failure to obtain the separate licence was treated as a procedural contravention attracting reduced penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether raw naphtha used in the manufacture of synthesis gas, ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, and in venting or low-load operations was eligible for the concessional benefit under Notification No. 75/84-C.E.; (ii) whether raw naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia and nitric acid sold to outside parties was eligible for the concessional rate under Notification No. 27/89-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 102/90; and (iii) whether failure to obtain separate L-6 licence in respect of the independent notification attracted penalty and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): whether raw naphtha used in the manufacture of synthesis gas, ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, and in venting or low-load operations was eligible for the concessional benefit under Notification No. 75/84-C.E.

Analysis: The exemption turned on intended use for manufacture of fertilizer, not on actual conversion into fertilizer in every case. Where raw naphtha was fed into the plant for the purpose of manufacturing fertilizer, the benefit could not be denied merely because supervening operational constraints led to venting of gases or low-load consumption. The quantity used in ammonium nitrate, being a fertilizer, also satisfied the notification conditions, and no additional requirement existed to prove actual end-use by customers.

Conclusion: The concessional benefit under Notification No. 75/84-C.E. was available for the quantities covered by Sl. Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Issue (ii): whether raw naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia and nitric acid sold to outside parties was eligible for the concessional rate under Notification No. 27/89-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 102/90.

Analysis: Separate L-6 permissions were required for independent notifications under the Chapter X procedure, but the record showed that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions and had indicated the relevant use of raw naphtha through the synthesis gas route. In the facts of the case, the substantive benefit of the later notification could not be denied on a merely technical lapse.

Conclusion: The concessional rate under Notification No. 27/89-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 102/90 was available for the quantity covered by Sl. No. 1.

Issue (iii): whether failure to obtain separate L-6 licence in respect of the independent notification attracted penalty and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The omission amounted to a contravention of the Chapter X procedure, so penalty was attracted, but the overall circumstances and the relief granted on the substantive duty issues justified substantial reduction.

Conclusion: Penalty was reduced to Rs. 4 lakhs.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the substantive duty demands for the disputed naphtha quantities, while the procedural lapse was visited only with a reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption notifications framed on intended use, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the raw material did not culminate in the final exempt product due to supervening operational constraints, where the material was initially fed for the notified purpose and the statutory conditions are substantially satisfied.

---