1989 (11) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri J. Banerjee, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : D.C. Mandal, Member (T)]. - In this case the respondents received sulphuric acid and availed of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 81/75C.E., dated 22-3-1975 claiming that the sulphuric acid would be used in the manufacture of fertiliser. Under this notification, sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertiliser was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant Collector and Shri Banerjee for the respondents. At the beginning of the hearing, Shri Sunder Rajan has argued that Cross objections filed by the respondents are not maintainable as no portion of the impugned order is against them. Further, he has argued that Cross-objection No. E/Cross/176/86-C is time-barred. The learned advocate for the respondents have not rebutted the objection raised....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stant Collector of Central Excise that the sulphuric acid has been used in the manufacture of fertilisers. In this case, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was not satisfied and hence, he disallowed the exemption. The learned advocate for the respondents have argued that without sulphuric acid urea cannot be manufactured. Indirect use of sulphuric acid in the manufacture of fertiliser is co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iser. In the said case, M/s. Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) used sulphuric acid in the manufacture of phosphoric acid which was then used in the manufacture of Sodium Hexa-Meta Phosphate (SHMP for short). The Tribunal allowed the benefit of exemption notification in respect of the sulphuric acid used in the said case. The facts are similar in the present case. The Assistant Collector....