Lachhma Chemicals and Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the only issue involved in both these cases is, whether the zinc sulphate falls within the expression "fertilizer" for the purposes of notification no. 81/75-ce dated 22.3.1975, as amended.2. both the authorities below have held that the benefit under the said notification no. 81/75-ce is not available to the appellants as exemption to sulphuric acid received by the appellants under chapter x procedure and used in the manufacture of zinc sulphate is not "fertilizer".3. when the case was called, shri sharad bhansali, learned sdr, appeared on behalf of the revenue and the appellants instead of entering into appearance have requested for a decision on merits in their absence. accordingly, we perused the record including the written submissions and heard shri sharad bhansali, learned sdr.4. at the outset, shri sharad bhansali, learned sdr, pointed out that the said issue is a covered one by the decision of this tribunal rendered in the case of punjab micro nutrients ltd. v. collector of central excise , wherein it was held that notification no. 81/75-ce dated 22.3.1975, as amended, while specifying the sub-heading 2802.20 for sulphuric acid does not do so in respect of fertilizer, that is to say, the notification does not spell out the exemption in terms of sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertilizer falling under chapter 31 of cet, 1985 which means, the exemption is available irrespective of the tariff heading under which the fertilizer may be classified.5. considered. following the ratio of the said decision and adding that the explanation to the said notification no. 81/75-ce itself expressly provides that "for the purposes of this notification, the expression 'fertilizers' shall have the same meaning assigned to it under the fertilizer (control) order, 1985." in the said fertiliser (control) order, 1985 zinc sulphate is specified at serial no. 1 of 1 (f) under micronutrients as fertiliser.6. in the light of the foregoing, we set aside both the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, according to law.

Judgment:
1. The only issue involved in both these cases is, whether the Zinc Sulphate falls within the expression "fertilizer" for the purposes of Notification No. 81/75-CE dated 22.3.1975, as amended.

2. Both the authorities below have held that the benefit under the said Notification No. 81/75-CE is not available to the appellants as exemption to Sulphuric Acid received by the appellants under Chapter X Procedure and used in the manufacture of Zinc Sulphate is not "fertilizer".

3. When the case was called, Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue and the appellants instead of entering into appearance have requested for a decision on merits in their absence. Accordingly, we perused the record including the written submissions and heard Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR.4. At the outset, Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR, pointed out that the said issue is a covered one by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Punjab Micro Nutrients Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , wherein it was held that Notification No. 81/75-CE dated 22.3.1975, as amended, while specifying the sub-heading 2802.20 for Sulphuric Acid does not do so in respect of fertilizer, that is to say, the Notification does not spell out the exemption in terms of Sulphuric Acid used in the manufacture of fertilizer falling under Chapter 31 of CET, 1985 which means, the exemption is available irrespective of the tariff heading under which the fertilizer may be classified.

5. Considered. Following the ratio of the said decision and adding that the explanation to the said Notification No. 81/75-CE itself expressly provides that "For the purposes of this Notification, the expression 'Fertilizers' shall have the same meaning assigned to it under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985." In the said Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 Zinc Sulphate is specified at Serial No. 1 of 1 (f) under Micronutrients as fertiliser.

6. In the light of the foregoing, we set aside both the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, according to law.