TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification No. 6/2002-CE as amended [Sr. No. 30] or Notification No. 6/2006-CE [Sr. No. 91] read with Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March, 2002 [Sr. No. 76] which was available to "naphtha" used in the manufacture of "fertilizer", is available to the respondent for that quantity of "naphtha" which was manufactured and cleared by it to M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (RCF). availing the benefits under the said notifications, but admittedly, not used by RCF in the manufacture of "fertilizers"? (b) Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that Central Excise Duty can be demanded from a person other than manufacturer of the excisable goods in a situation where the goods are locally procured under Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification in the series is annexed as Exhibit-'C' to the petition. 7. Before us is an assessee, namely, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products. These products fall under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee before us supplied naphtha to M/s. RCF against international competitive bidding at nil rate of duty and claimed the benefit of the above notifications. 8. The Revenue proposed to deny that on the ground that the naphtha was not utilised for manufacture of fertilizers by the RCF. This conclusion was reached by the Revenue after it visited the site/factory of RCF. Based on all this, a show cause notice was issued, rather two in number ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he second argument is that the tribunal concluded that the actual user condition has to be fulfilled by the buyer/user RCF and that the assessee before us, namely, HPCL cannot be expected to ensure the use of the goods by the RCF. Even this finding is termed as perverse. 13. Mr. Patil would support the conclusion of the tribunal and would submit that given the language of the notification, the assessee before us is not expected to ensure fulfillment of the condition and it is imposed on the end user. Mr. Patil would submit that wherever the Revenue desired and intended that an actual or end user condition should be included or inserted in the exemption notification, it has so expressed it in the notification itself. Absent such a stipula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It also found that goods falling under hearing 27.10 or 2714.90 are exempt from payment of customs duty and additional duty for the manufacture of fertilizers. However, the said customs duty exemption is not unconditional. The customs duty exemption is available if the importer follows Condition No. 5 in the Customs Notification No. 21/2002 which mandates that the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The tribunal also carefully perused these rules and came to the conclusion that the notifications read together would rev....