TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. We have examined the facts of this case. The facts are identical to the facts involved in the Appeal no. E/10576/2019 which was decided by the Final Order no. A/10703/2020 dated 28.02.2020. In the said order, following was observed: 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellant are seeking benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17 March 2012. Notification 12.2012-CE grants exemption to goods falling under Chapter heading 25030010 from payment of Central Excise duty subject to condition, entry 55 which reads as under:- Sl. No. Table Sl. No. Chapter of heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule Description of excisable goods Rate Condition 1 2 3 4 5 55 25030010 All goods for manufacture of fertilizers Nil 2 The appellant have placed on record a flow diagram detailing the manner the Sulphur is used:- 6. The first issue relates to use of Sulphur used for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid/ Oleum which in turn used for manufacture of Molten Urea. Revenue's objection is that the some quantity of Molten Urea is used as input for the manufacture of Malamin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urat and Ors. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350)], a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Ramaswami, J. has made the following pertinent observations in paragraph 5 of the Report : "....It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the matter is different but that is not the case here..." In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (88) E.L.T. 314 (S.C.)], one of us S.P. Bharucha, J. speaking for a Bench of two learned Judges, while dealing with an exemption notification in connection with raw naphtha laid down in paragraph 5 of the Report that due emphasis had to be given to the clear language of the condition mentioned in the exemption notification. Same view was reiterated in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty subject to exemption notification, if any, under Tariff Item 31.02. Only because it was captively consumed in the onward process of manufacture which had resulted into melamine, it could not be said that the final product for the purpose of Excise Act had not emerged in the shape of molten urea by the captive consumption of ammonia." Revenue has sought to distinguish this decision by stating that Sulphuric Acid used in Cooling Towers does not qualify as use in the manufacture of Urea. We find that claim of the appellant that Sulphuric Acid is directly used in the manufacture of Urea has not been contested by Revenue in the impugned order. We find that distinction made is not logical as Sulphuric Acid is also directly used in the manufacture of Urea as claimed by the appellant. In this circumstance, we find no merit in the Revenue's case in so far as the use of Sulphur in manufacture of Urea is concerned. Exemption in respect of Sulphur used in manufacture of Urea is allowed. 7. The second issue relates to use of Sulphur in the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid/Oleum which in turn used in Caprolactam Plant. Caprolactam is manufactured along with Ammonium Sulphate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacture of fertilizers". There are no restrictive terms cutting down the width of the phrase "intended for use". Applying the canon of construction mentioned earlier, i.e. that such exemption notifications are to be considered in their own terms, the Court holds that the express terms here do not make a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" product or "main product" and "by-product". As far back as in Hansraj's case, it was ruled that : "It is well-established that in a taxing statute there is no room for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling (emphasis supplied) In this case the notification does not prohibit the use of diverse technologies that may enable a manufacture to produce two kinds of goods, simultaneously, in the same process. It is not denied that for each ton of Caprolactum produced 5.1 tonnes of ammonium sulphate is produced. If indeed this is deemed a by-product it appears to be a case of the proverbial tail wagging the dog. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty the sulphuric acid intended for use in the manufacture of fertilisers. We find the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fertiliser Corporation of India Limited v. C.C.E., Patna reported in [1997 (23) RLT 594 (CEGAT)]. In this case, the Tribunal, while following the earlier decisions in the cases of Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited v. C.C.E., Patna reported in [1987 (30) E.L.T. 507] and C.C.E., Patna v. Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation reported in [1996 (85) E.L.T. 187] held that sulphuric acid used in the fertiliser plant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 81/75-C.E." We find merit in the decision and therefore, relying on the said decision, we allow the appeal in so far as use of Sulphuric Acid in the Cooling Towers is concerned. 9. 4th issue relates to use of Sulphuric Acid in the manufacture of Phosphoric Acid (and Phospho Gypsum) which in turn used to produce Ammonium Phosphate. The benefit has been sought to be denied on the ground that bye-product Phospho Gypsum is also manufactured and sold in the open market on payment of duty. It is not in dispute that Ammonium Sulphate is fertilizer. In this regard, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts) captively consumed and used in the manufacture of products falling under chapter 27 namely methane and ethane. 9 to 29 ..... 30. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgments cited at the Bar. The Tribunal's finding that the ethylene and propylene used as refrigerant has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the same goods. The inevitable and automatic emergence of ethane and methane, therefore, by itself is no ground for denying the exemption contained in the notification. The Tribunal came to the categoric finding that the respondent could not have manufactured ethylene and propylene without manufacturing its by-products ethane and methane. The Tribunal held that in any technology the emergence of ethane and methane was inevitable and hence while it is no doubt correct to say that the ethylene and propylene have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of ethane and methane, the identical quantity of the same goods has simultaneously been used in the manufacture of ethylene and propylene. The emergence of ethane and methane, therefore, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of exemption to the respond....