TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appellants relief under Notification No. 27/89 for duty calculation on raw Naptha.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. The Tribunal extended the benefit of Notification No. ... Benefit of Notification No. 27/89-C.E. is available Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 75/84-C.E. dated 1-3-1984 and Notification No. 27/89-C.E. dated 1-3-1989.2. Applicability of duty on raw Naptha used in the manufacture of gases instead of fertilizers.3. Benefit of Notification No. 27/89 in the case of raw Naptha used for the production of Synthesis gas/Hydrogen gas.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on raw Naptha used in the manufacture of gases instead of fertilizers under Notification No. 75/84-C.E. dated 1-3-1984. The Assistant Collector held that duty was leviable on the raw Naptha used in the manufacture of gases but applied the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 27/89-C.E. dated 1-3-1989. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-determination of duty without extending the benefit of Notification No. 27/89 to the appellants.2. The Tribunal considered that the raw Naptha obtained at a concessional rate under Notification No. 75/84 was used in the production of Synthesis gas and Ammonia/Nitric Acid instead of fertilizers. The appellants admitted the duty liability on the raw Naptha used for these purposes. The key issue was whether the benefit of Notification No. 27/89 should be extended to the appellants for calculating the duty on the raw Naptha used in the manufacture of Ammonia and Nitric Acid, as all conditions of this notification were satisfied by the appellants.3. The Tribunal noted that in a previous decision involving similar facts, the benefit of Notification No. 27/89 had been extended to the appellants. Since the issue was the same and had been settled in favor of the appellants in a previous case, the Tribunal decided to follow the same ratio and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of relevant notifications, the applicability of duty on raw Naptha used for different purposes, and the consideration of extending the benefit of a different notification in similar circumstances based on precedent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
