2016 (8) TMI 935

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that the issue involved is regarding demand of differential duty from the respondent on the ground that the fertilizers cleared by them by availing the notification no. 6/02-CE dated 01/03/2002 and Notification No. 4/06-CE dated 1/3/2006 during the period 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 were not used as fertilizers. It is the case of the Revenue that during the relevant period in question, fertilizers were cleared availing the benefit of exemption notification but some part of the fertilizers were lost in transit and such loss is not covered under the benefit of notification as the fertilizers were not used for intended purpose. 4. We do not agree with the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and as also articulated by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t as for exemption goods actually used or goods used . The appeal filed by the Department against said Tribunal order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (1997-94-ELT-A143 (Supreme Court.) Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Ramsons Garments Finishing Equip. P. Ltd. {2007-211-ELT 44 (Tribunal-Bang) wherein it held that in absence of end-use condition in the relevant notification, the benefit of concession of duty can not be denied, as the word for use in textile industry/required for textile industry cannot be interpreted narrowly to mean that they should be actually used in the textile industry. Further, Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Food, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd., observed that exemption under Notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unambiguous intention at the time of clearance of the goods not to use them as fertilizer, the exemption shall not be available to such goods. In other words, if goods are clearly intended to be used as fertilizers at the time of clearance the exemption would be available. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases cited above has clearly viewed that expression to be used would mean intended to be used, i.e., if the goods are not intended to be used fertilizer the exemption shall not be available. Since, in this case, there was no such intention and goods were cleared with clear intention to be used a fertilizer then mere fact that certain quantity of urea was not used as fertilizer due to loss in transportation, re-bagging and standardization, it w....