https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356034 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Notifications No. 6/2002-CE and No. 6/2006-CE regarding the exemption for naphtha used in fertilizer manufacturing. The appellant, HPCL, supplied naphtha to RCF for this purpose. The Revenue challenged, claiming RCF did not use it for manufacturing fertilizers, demanding central excise duty. The Tribunal held the liability for non-use rested with RCF, not HPCL. The High Court upheld this view, dismissing the appeal. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356034 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Notifications No. 6/2002-CE and No. 6/2006-CE regarding the exemption for naphtha used in fertilizer manufacturing. The appellant, HPCL, supplied naphtha to RCF for this purpose. The Revenue challenged, claiming RCF did not use it for manufacturing fertilizers, demanding central excise duty. The Tribunal held the liability for non-use rested with RCF, not HPCL. The High Court upheld this view, dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356034