2000 (10) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri M.I. Sethna, Senior Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ethylene, propylene, butadiene, toluene and other products. It had claimed benefit of notifications 190/75, 75/84, 27/89 and 102/90 during the various periods with which this appeal is concerned. These notifications provide parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....February 1994. The duty was demanded in terms of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalty was also proposed. The Collector after considering the cause shown and hearing the appellant confirmed the demand for duty. Hence this appeal. 2. The appellant had followed the Chapter X procedure as required by the notifications. It had applied for and obtained a licence specified in Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, it cannot be said that the goods were not used for the purpose and in the manner stated in the application. Hence provisions of Rule 196 could not have been invoked. 4. The applicant had made two applications for the issue of L-6 licence. The first was made on 11-7-1977. In this application seven products were stated by it to be intended to be manufactured out of raw naphtha i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal was concerned in that decision with the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification 37/73 to toluene received by the assessee under Chapter X procedure because it was used in the manufacture of goods other than those specified in the notification. It was used in the manufacture of thinner, which is not one of the goods not specified in the notification. The Tribunal found tha....