1998 (8) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Appellant. Shri Willingdon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  These 3 appeals filed by the Revenue involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The issue in two of the appeals viz. E/2356/93-C and E/1252/95-C is whether the respondents herein who are manufacturers inter alia of di-amm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hate and urea to industries for chemical use, the benefit under Notification 81/75 (for sulphuric acid) and Notification 75/84 (for raw naphtha) was not available and the respondents were liable to pay differential duty/duty at tariff rate, on the raw naphtha and sulphuric acid procured by them. 3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR who contends that the intention of the legislat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the case of the same assessee, the Apex Court held that the benefit of Notification 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 was available to the appellants since raw naphtha was used by the appellants to manufacture ammonia, and the benefit of notification could not be denied on the ground that ammonia was further used in the manufacture of molten urea which was not a soil fertilizer. The Court also held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of CCE, Vadodara v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 194 (Tribunal) = 1998 (76) ECR 422 (Tribunal), the benefit of Notification 75/84-C.E. was extended to raw naphtha first used in the manufacture of ammonia and then captively consumed in the manufacture of di-ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulphate and urea which are fertilizers, holding that the benefit cannot be de....