<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Intended use exemption for naphtha upheld; extended limitation rejected for lack of deliberate suppression and revenue neutrality.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98229</link>
    <description>Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Intended use exemption for naphtha upheld; extended limitation rejected for lack of deliberate suppression and revenue neutrality.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98229</link>
      <description>Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>