ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against OIA No. 75/2002-Cus., dated 5-11-2002.
2. The Commissioner had held that the furnace oil utilized by the assessee is eligible for the availment of the benefit of Notification 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. He has noted that Annexure to Notification 1/95 at Sl. No. 3B specifically provides that fuel can be obtained duty free as approved by the Commissioner of Customs on recommendation of the Development Commissioner. He has noted that it is not the case of the department that either the fuel was obtained duty free without the approval of the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner or any of the procedural conditions of the notification have not been met. He has noted that in the instant case it is only on the approval of Commissioner of Customs which was based on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner that the assessee was issued CT-3 Certificate and allowed to obtain furnace oil duty free. He has noted that Department now cannot turn back and deny the exemption granted which even otherwise is not correct.
3. Revenue contend that the furnace oil is required to be used only in the case of textile units and there is an error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. We have heard both sides and find that the amending notification 31/98 dated 15-9-1998 has correctly brought Item 3B to Annexure I of the Notification 1/95 dated 4-1-1995 to incorporate fuel, lubricants and consumables for goods specified at item 3 and 3A as approved by the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendations of the Development Commissioner. The revenue has referred to items 3C which deals with furnace oil required for the boilers used in the textile units. However has over looked ‘3B’ which refers as noted (supra). The furnace oil is fuel and it is covered under Item 3B as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further more, the consultant referred to the Tribunal Ruling in the case of Tata Tea Ltd. v. CCE wherein furnace oil procured duty free by 100 EOU was held to be entitled to the benefit of the said Notification on their fulfilling the terms.
There is no doubt about the fact that the appellants have fulfilled all other terms of the Notification and there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the Revenue appeal is therefore rejected.
(Operative portion of the order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)