ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 75/84-C.E. is available to them in respect of Naphtha procured by them under Chapter X Procedure.
2. When the matters were called, Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate, requested for adjournment for filing the paper book containing show cause notice, etc. As the appeals are quite old one, the request to adjourn the matters was not acceeded to. The learned Advocate, therefore, refused to argue the matters. We, therefore, heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned D.R. and perused the records.
3. It has been submitted by the appellants in their appeal memorandum that they manufacture fertilizer for which they procured Naphtha at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 75/84 and subsequent Notifications; that the Notification provided a concessional rate of duty, if raw-naphtha is intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizer and ammonia; that under subsequent Notifications No. 8/96 & 4/97, Naphtha was exempt from payment of duty if it is intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia. It has been, further, mentioned in the appeal memorandum that the Naphtha so procured was used by them in the manufacture of ammonia, which was then used for the manufacture of urea, fertilizer and calcium ammonium nitrate that they were also getting two intermediate products, viz. nitric acid and ammonium nitrate; that the Commissioner, under the impugned orders, has confirmed the duty as the Naphtha has been used in the manufacture of two intermediate products, ammonia acid and ammonium nitrate, which has been sold outside holding that the Naphtha is used in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate and the ammonium nitrate is not eligible for the benefit of Exemption Notification. The appellants have also relied upon the decision in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. v. CCE, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The learned S.D.R. has submitted that as Naphtha, procured under the Notification, has not been used in the manufacture of intended product, the benefit of the Notification will not be available to them; that the Commissioner has also given his finding that the decision in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. is not applicable to the facts of the present matters as in that matter raw naphtha was used to manufacture ammonia, which was captively used to manufacture molten urea, which in turn was used to manufacture melamine and it was held that molten urea was undisputely classifiable as a chemical fertilizer; that the Commissioner has, further, observed that in the present matters, industrial products out of Naphtha procured under the Notification were manufactured and sold by them, which could not be said to have been manufactured from fertilizers or ammonia.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the industrial products have been manufactured out of raw-naphtha procured by availing the benefit of Notification. Once the Naphtha has been used in the manufacture of other products, the benefit of Notification will not be available to the appellants. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected.
