SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

I.J.RAO, D.C.MANDAL, G.P.AGARWAL
Steel Authority of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anil Dewan, Srinarain, Sundeep Narain,V.M. Doiphode

ORDER

D.C. Mandal, Member (T)

1. Two issues are required to be decided by us in this appeal. The same are :-

(i) Whether Raw Naptha obtained at concessional rate of Central Excise duty at Rs. 4.40 per K.L. in terms of Government of India's Notification No. 187/61-C.E., dated 23-12-1961 for the manufacture of fertilizer against L-6 licence, which was fed into the Plant to keep it running but not actually utilised in the manufacture of Calcium Ammonium Nitrate, a fertilizer, is eligible for the benefit of the Notification; and

(ii) Whether the demand for duty raised in the show cause notice dated 23-4-1984 for the Raw Naptha so used during the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-10-1983 in terms of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, and the bond executed by the appellants, was barred by limitation?

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Order-in-Original dated 5-12-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela, are as follows :-

M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Fertilizer Plant, Rourkela (in short "SAIL") obtained Raw Naphtha falling under Item No. 6 of the Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on which the excise duty at a concessional rate of Rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top