{"id":56589,"date":"1997-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997"},"modified":"2019-01-25T08:54:12","modified_gmt":"2019-01-25T03:24:12","slug":"ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S Manohar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Cji, A.M. Ahmadi, Sujata V. Manohar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nM\/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALSCORPORATION LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE.VADODARA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/03\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant is a Government of India Undertaking. The<br \/>\nappellant is  engaged,, inter  alia, in\t the manufacture  of<br \/>\nEthylene, Propylene,  Benzene, Toluene\tand  other  products<br \/>\nfalling under  Chapters 27  and 29  of\tthe  Central  Excise<br \/>\nTariff Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At the material time the appellant obtained raw naphtha<br \/>\nfrom the  Refinery in  terms of\t Notification  No.27\/89-C.E.<br \/>\ndated 1.3.1989. Under this notification, raw naphtha falling<br \/>\nunder sub-heading  No.2710.14 of the Schedule to the Central<br \/>\nExcise Tariff  Act, 1985 intended for use in the manufacture<br \/>\nof products  specified in  the table  annexed  to  the\tsaid<br \/>\nnotification, is  exempt from payment of so much of the duty<br \/>\nof excise  leviable thereon  as is  in excess  of the amount<br \/>\ncalculated at  the rate\t of Rs.60 per Kilolitre at 15 degree<br \/>\nCentigrade on  the  quantity  of  naphtha  consumed  in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of\tthe said  products. The\t table\tof  products<br \/>\nwhich is  annexed to  the notification,\t inter alia,  covers<br \/>\nEthylene, Propylene,  Butadiene, Benzene,  Toluene and Para-<br \/>\nxylene which  are the products manufactured by the appellant<br \/>\nfrom  raw  naphtha  obtained  by  the  appellant  under\t the<br \/>\nconcessional  rate   of\t excise\t  duty\t under\t the   above<br \/>\nnotification. According to the appellant it has not violated<br \/>\nany term of this notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The text of the notification is as follows:<br \/>\n     &#8220;Concessional rate on naphtha  used<br \/>\n     in\t the  manufacture  of  specified<br \/>\n     chemicals.\t In   exercise\tof   the<br \/>\n     powers conferred by sub-section (1)<br \/>\n     of\t section   5A  of   the\t Central<br \/>\n     Excises and  Salt Act,  1944 (1  of<br \/>\n     1944),  the   Central   Government,<br \/>\n     being   satisfied\t  that\t it   is<br \/>\n     necessary in the public interest so<br \/>\n     to do,  hereby exempts raw naphtha,<br \/>\n     falling\t  under\t     sub-heading<br \/>\n     No.2710.14 of  the Schedule  to the<br \/>\n     Central Excise  Tariff Act, 1985 (5<br \/>\n     of 1986),\tintended for  use in the<br \/>\n     manufacture   of\t the\tproducts<br \/>\n     specified\tin   the  Table\t  hereto<br \/>\n     annexed from so much of the duty of<br \/>\n     excise from  so much of the duty of<br \/>\n     excise leviable  thereon as  is  in<br \/>\n     excess of\tthe amount calculated at<br \/>\n     the rate  of Rs.60 per kilolitre at<br \/>\n     15 c  on the  quantity  of\t naphtha<br \/>\n     consumed in the manufacture  of the<br \/>\n     said products:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided  that  where  the\t use  is<br \/>\n     elsewhere than  in the  factory  of<br \/>\n     manufacture the  procedure set  out<br \/>\n     in Chapter\t x of the Central Excise<br \/>\n     Rules, 1944 is followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Explanation:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     1.\t  The amount of naphtha consumed<br \/>\n     in the manufacture of the\tproducts<br \/>\n     shall be  calculated by subtracting<br \/>\n     from  the\t quantity   of\t naphtha<br \/>\n     received\t  by\t the\t factory<br \/>\n     manufacturing  the\t  products   the<br \/>\n     quantity of naphtha returned by the<br \/>\n     factory to\t a refinery, declared as<br \/>\n     such under sub-rule (2) of rule 140<br \/>\n     of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.\t  In cases  where certain  goods<br \/>\n     which are\tincidental,  inevitable,<br \/>\n     or involuntary  to the  process  of<br \/>\n     manufacture the  products specified<br \/>\n     in the  said Table\t are produced in<br \/>\n     the course\t of the manufacture, the<br \/>\n     exemption under  this  notification<br \/>\n     shall not\tbe denied for the reason<br \/>\n     that  the\t said  goods   are   not<br \/>\n     products  specified   in  the  said<br \/>\n     Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n\t\t TABLE\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     1.\t\t\t   Ethylene\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.\t\t\t   Propylene\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.\t\t\t   Butadiene\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.\t   &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.\t   &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.\t\t\t   Benzene\n<\/p>\n<p>     7.\t\t\t   Toluene\n<\/p>\n<p>     8.\t\t\t   Para-xylene\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n     According to  the appellant  the entire quantity of raw<br \/>\nnaphtha obtained  by it is subjected to thermal cracking and<br \/>\nis further  subjected to  fraction and\tother  processes  to<br \/>\nextract or  manufacture these  products. At  an intermediate<br \/>\nstage of  manufacture, one  of the  byproducts\tobtained  is<br \/>\npyrolysis Gasolene.  Pyrolysis Gasolene is further processed<br \/>\nby the\tappellant to  obtain Benzene  and Toluene  which are<br \/>\nproducts enumerated  in the  Table. The\t residue left  after<br \/>\nthis manufacture  is further  processed to produce petroleum<br \/>\nResins. Petroleum  Resins are  not listed  in Table. What is<br \/>\nleft over is returned to the refinery.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Collector,  Central Excise  held  that\t the  entire<br \/>\nquantity of pyrolysis Gasolene which was presumed by  him to<br \/>\nbe raw\tnaphtha, was  not entitled  to concessional  rate of<br \/>\nduty as it was used for the manufacture of Petroleum Resins.<br \/>\nHe levied a duty of Rs.24,41,99,988.77, ordered confiscation<br \/>\nof land,  building, plant,  machinery  with  option  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant to  redeem them on payment of Rs.1 lac and imposed<br \/>\na penalty of Rs.5 crores.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In appeal\tthe Tribunal  held that\t  Pyrolysis Gasolene<br \/>\nused for  manufacture of Benzene and Toluene was entitled to<br \/>\nconcessional  rate  of\tduty.  But  the\t residual  Pyrolysis<br \/>\nGasolene used  for the\tmanufacture of\tPetroleum Resins was<br \/>\nnot so\tentitled. It  reduced the duty to Rs.4.36 crores and<br \/>\nreduced the  penalty to\t Rs.10 lacs.  The present  appeal is<br \/>\nfrom this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Broadly speaking, the process of manufacture adopted by<br \/>\nthe appellant is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Raw Naphtha  which is  obtained by\t the appellant\tat a<br \/>\nconcessional rate  of duty  under the  above notification is<br \/>\ncracked at  high  temperature  as  a  result  of  which\t (1)<br \/>\nolefenic rich  gas (2)\tpyrolysis fuel oil and (3) pyrolysis<br \/>\ngasolene are  produced. Out  of these  olefenic rich  gas is<br \/>\nfurther processed  for the  purpose of\tobtaining  ethylene,<br \/>\nbutediene, propylene  and  other  items\t enumerated  in\t the<br \/>\nTable. Residual\t gas is flared while the residue is returned<br \/>\nto naphtha  cracker. The  products which are obtained by the<br \/>\nfurther processing  of olefenic\t rich gas are all covered by<br \/>\nthe table in the concession notification. Pyrolysis fuel oil<br \/>\nwhich is  the  second  resultant  of  the  thermal  cracking<br \/>\nprocess is  used internally  as fuel  and is also removed as<br \/>\ncarbon black feed stock.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Upto this\tstage the  respondent has  accepted that the<br \/>\nappellant has  complied with  the requirements\tof the above<br \/>\nnotification. The  difficulty in the present case has arisen<br \/>\non account  of the  third resultant  of the thermal cracking<br \/>\nprocessing, namely,  pyrolysis gasolene.  Pyrolysis gasolene<br \/>\nwhich arises  in the  process of thermal cracking is further<br \/>\nprocessed by  the appellant  in order  to obtain benzene and<br \/>\ntoluene which  are also\t enumerated items.  Since  1984\t the<br \/>\nappellant has  put up  a petroleum  resin plant.  After\t the<br \/>\nextraction of  benzene and  toluene, the  residual pyrolysis<br \/>\ngasolene is  further processed\tin the petroleum resin plant<br \/>\nof the\tappellant. The residual product is given a C8.C9 Cut<br \/>\nwhich ultimately  results in  the manufacture  of  petroleum<br \/>\nresins. Petroleum  resins are  not mentioned  in  the  table<br \/>\nannexed to the above exemption notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to the respondent, the appellant has diverted<br \/>\npyrolysis gasolene  for the  manufacture of petroleum resins<br \/>\nand therefore,\tpyrolysis gasolene  to the extent that it is<br \/>\nused for  the manufacture  of  petroleum  resins  cannot  be<br \/>\ngranted concessional  rates of excise duty Accordingly under<br \/>\nthe  impugned  order  of  CEGAT,  duty\tof  excise  must  be<br \/>\ncalculated on  the balance  of residue of pyrolysis gasolene<br \/>\n&#8220;diverted&#8221; for\tC8.C9 Cut  and not  on the  entire pyrolysis<br \/>\ngasolene as  earlier held by the department. As a result the<br \/>\nappellant  has\t become\t liable\t  to  pay   duty  calculated<br \/>\napproximately\t at\tRs.4.36\t   crores     instead\t  of<br \/>\nRs.24,41,99,988.77 as earlier held by the department.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In order to decide whether the findings of Tribunal are<br \/>\ncorrect, we  must examine  the terms  of the notification in<br \/>\nquestion. The  notification exempts raw naphtha intended for<br \/>\nuse in\tthe manufacture\t of products  specified in the table<br \/>\nattached to  it from  so much of the duty of excise as is in<br \/>\nexcess of  the amount  calculated at  the rate\tof Rs.60 per<br \/>\nkilolitre at  15  degree  c.  on  the  quantity\t of  naphtha<br \/>\nconsumed in  the manufacture  of the said products. It is an<br \/>\naccepted position  that the appellant under the notification<br \/>\nfor the\t manufacture of\t products which\t are listed  in\t the<br \/>\ntable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The only  contention of  the  department  is  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant has  not used\t the entire  quantity of raw naphtha<br \/>\nfor this  purpose. This\t contention does  not appear  to  be<br \/>\ncorrect. The  entire  quantity\tof  raw\t naphtha  which\t was<br \/>\nobtained by  the appellant  under the exemption notification<br \/>\nis  subjected\tto  thermal  cracking  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nobtaining ethyelene,  butadiene, propylene  and other  items<br \/>\nwhich are  incorporated in  the said table. After the entire<br \/>\nquantity of  raw naphtha  is subjected\tto thermal cracking,<br \/>\nthree items  emerge; olefenic  rich gas,  pyrolysis fuel oil<br \/>\nand pyrolysis  gasolene.  There\t is  no\t way  in  which\t the<br \/>\nappellant could\t have avoided  this outcome.  Out  of  these<br \/>\nresultants, olefenic  rich gas\tis required  to\t be  further<br \/>\nprocessed for  the manufacture\tof items forming part of the<br \/>\ntable.\tOne   of  the\tother  resultant  products,  namely,<br \/>\npyrolysis gasolene  is further processed to obtain some more<br \/>\nproducts which\tare listed in the table, namely, benzene and<br \/>\ntoluene. For  this processing of pyrolysis gasolene also the<br \/>\ndepartment  has\t  no  objection\t  because  as  a  result  of<br \/>\nprocessing of  pyrolysis gasolene  the\tproducts  which\t are<br \/>\nobtained are listed in the table.\n<\/p>\n<p>     However, the  further processing  of residual pyrolysis<br \/>\ngasolene after\textraction of  benzene and  toluene  in\t the<br \/>\npetroleum resin plant of the appellant is objected to by the<br \/>\ndepartment. This  further processing  of pyrolysis  gasolene<br \/>\nresidue results\t in production of petroleum resins which are<br \/>\nnot enumerated\tin the\tsaid table. There is no dispute that<br \/>\non petroleum  resins so manufactured the appellant is paying<br \/>\nduty of excise. The only dispute is as to the duty of excise<br \/>\nto  be\t levied\t on  pyrolysis\tgasolene  residue  which  is<br \/>\nprocessed in  the petroleum  resin plant of the appellant to<br \/>\nmanufacture resins.  According to the respondent the portion<br \/>\nof  the\t  residual  pyrolysis\tgasolene  consumed   in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of petroleum resins should have been returned to<br \/>\nthe refinery.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  first place  the contention  of the  respondent<br \/>\nthat  the   appellant  has   diverted  raw   naptha  to\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of\tpetroleum resins  is not  correct. What\t the<br \/>\nappellant obtained  under the exemption notification was raw<br \/>\nnaphtha which  was subjected to thermal cracking. The entire<br \/>\nquantity of  raw naphtha    so\tobtained  was  subjected  to<br \/>\nprocessing for\tthe purpose of obtaining items enumerated in<br \/>\nthe table.  The appellant  did not set apart any quantity of<br \/>\nraw naphtha  for the  purpose of obtaining petroleum resins.<br \/>\nIt has\tmerely subjected  the residual pyrolysis gasolene to<br \/>\nfurther processing  in the  petroleum resin  plant  for\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of\tpetroleum resins.  This\t residual  pyrolysis<br \/>\ngasolene cannot\t be  equated  with  raw\t naphtha  which\t was<br \/>\nobtained at  concessional rate of duty. Explanation 2 of the<br \/>\nnotification provides  that in\tcases  where  certain  goods<br \/>\nwhich are  incidental,\tinevitable  or\tinvoluntary  to\t the<br \/>\nprocess of manufacture of the products specified in the said<br \/>\ntable  are   produced  in  the\tcourse\tof  manufacture\t the<br \/>\nexemption under this notification shall not be denied on the<br \/>\nground that  these goods  are not  products specified in the<br \/>\nsaid  Schedule.\t  In  fact,  the  respondent  has  issued  a<br \/>\nclarification with  the concurrence  of the  Ministry of Law<br \/>\nbearing G.I.(D.R.  &amp; D.) F.No. 03\/15\/72-Cx.3 dated 26.3.1976<br \/>\nsetting out as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.it  is\t clarified  that<br \/>\n     when raw  naphtha is  intended  for<br \/>\n     use in  the manufacture  of any one<br \/>\n     or more  of the  products specified<br \/>\n     in the  Schedule  appended\t to  the<br \/>\n     notification  the\t production   of<br \/>\n     other     goods\t  which\t     are<br \/>\n     incidental\/inevitable\/involuntary<br \/>\n     in\t such\tproduction   would   not<br \/>\n     disturb the scheme of exemption and<br \/>\n     that the  whole of\t the raw naphtha<br \/>\n     would be  deemed to  have been used<br \/>\n     in the  manufacture of  the product<br \/>\n     for the  manufacture of  which  raw<br \/>\n     naphtha was obtained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In\t this  connection.  our\t attention  is\tdrawn  to  a<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court\t in the\t case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1041362\/\">State of Haryana v.<br \/>\nDalmia Dadri  Cement Ltd.<\/a>  (1987 (Supp)\t SCC 679).  In\tthat<br \/>\ncase,  cement\trequired  for\tuse  in\t the  generation  or<br \/>\ndistribution of\t electrical energy  was exempted  from sales<br \/>\ntax. The  Punjab State\tElectricity Board  had obtained\t the<br \/>\ncement and  given certificates\tthat it\t was for  use in the<br \/>\ngeneration or  distribution of\telectrical energy. The Court<br \/>\nsaid that  the mere fact that some of the cement supply was,<br \/>\nin fact,  used by  the Board  for  activities  not  directly<br \/>\nconnected with\tthe generation or distribution of electrical<br \/>\nenergy cannot make any difference to the availability of the<br \/>\nexemption. The\tintention of  the board\t was that the cement<br \/>\nwas directly  connected with  the generation or distribution<br \/>\nof electrical energy.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  present case,  the entire\traw naphtha which is<br \/>\nobtained at  concessional rates\t of duty  is made use of for<br \/>\nthe purpose  of obtaining  products permitted under the said<br \/>\nexemption notification. Only some of the processed residue<br \/>\nis used\t for the  manufacture of  other products.  There is,<br \/>\ntherefore,  no,\t  violation  in\t the  present  case  of\t the<br \/>\nexemption notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  case of  m\/s. <a href=\"\/doc\/1747933\/\">Steel  Authority of India Ltd. v.<br \/>\nCollector  of\tCentral\t Excise\t (C.A.\tNos.3406-11\/90<\/a>\twith<br \/>\nC.A.No. 3178\/90\t decided by  this Court\t on 30-7-1995,\tS.P.<br \/>\nBharucha and  K.T. Thomas, JJ.) raw naphtha was subjected to<br \/>\na concessional\trate of duty under an exemption notification<br \/>\nprovided that  it was intended for use in the manufacture of<br \/>\nfertilizers. Raw  naphtha which\t was so obtained by SAIL was<br \/>\naccording  to\tthe  revenue   not  used  entirely  for\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of\tfertilizers. According\tto SAIL,  because of<br \/>\nabnormal  operating   conditions     there   was   excessive<br \/>\nconsumption of raw naphtha on account of low load operation,<br \/>\ninterruption in\t the plant  operations due to low, uncertain<br \/>\nand fluctuation\t availability of  power. Also consumption of<br \/>\nnaphtha was  further high  because gases produced out of raw<br \/>\nnaphtha had  to be  vented due to acute power crisis causing<br \/>\ninterruption\/stoppages of  down stream\tunits of  the plant.<br \/>\nThe Court  said that although raw naphtha for reasons beyond<br \/>\nthe control  of\t SAIL  did  not,  in  fact,  result  in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of fertilizer and had to be vented at an interim<br \/>\nstage, nevertheless  it could  not be  vented at  an interim<br \/>\nstage, nevertheless  it could  not be  said  that  SAIL\t had<br \/>\nviolated any condition of the exemption notification because<br \/>\nraw naphtha which was fed by SAIL into its plant was for the<br \/>\npurpose and with the intention of manufacturing fertilizers.<br \/>\nIt was\tonly because  of supervening  circumstances that the<br \/>\nreformed  gas\tproduced  during   the\tinterim\t  stage\t  of<br \/>\nmanufacture had to be vented out.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the   present\tcase,\tpyrolysis  gasolene   is  an<br \/>\nincidental product  which  has\tbeen  further  processed  to<br \/>\nobtain petroleum  resin. This  cannot  be  considered  as  a<br \/>\ndiversion of  raw naphtha obtained at concessional rates for<br \/>\nmanufacture of other items.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t this\tconnection,  the  appellant  has  drawn\t our<br \/>\nattention   to\t  another   exemption\tnotification   being<br \/>\nNotification No.28\/89-C.E.  also dated\t1.3.1989 which is as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Exemption\t of   goods  other  than<br \/>\n     blended or\t compounded  lubricating<br \/>\n     oils and greases. &#8212; In exersise of<br \/>\n     the powers conferred by sub-section<br \/>\n     (1) of  section 5A\t of the\t Central<br \/>\n     Excises and  Salt Act,  1944 (1  of<br \/>\n     1944),  the   Central   Government,<br \/>\n     being   satisfied\t  that\t it   is<br \/>\n     necessary in the public interest so<br \/>\n     to do,  hereby exempts goods (other<br \/>\n     than    blended\tor    compounded<br \/>\n     lubricating   oils\t  and\tgreases)<br \/>\n     falling under  Chapter  27\t of  the<br \/>\n     Schedule  to   the\t Central  Excise<br \/>\n     Tariff  Act,   1985  (5   of  1986)<br \/>\n     produced in a factory and&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (a)  utilised  in\tthe  factory  in<br \/>\n     which the\tsaid excisable goods are<br \/>\n     produced, for  the\t manufacture  of<br \/>\n     other goods  or as\t fuel  for  such<br \/>\n     manufacture  (excluding  fuel  used<br \/>\n     for any internal combustion engine)<br \/>\n     or both: or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (b)  allowed  to\tescape\tin   the<br \/>\n     atmosphere\t by   flare  system   of<br \/>\n     otherwise;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     from  the\twhole  of  the\tduty  of<br \/>\n     excise leviable  thereon  which  is<br \/>\n     specified in the said Schedule.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Under this\t notification pyrolysis gasolene which falls<br \/>\nunder Chapter  27 is produced in the appellant&#8217;s factory and<br \/>\nit is  utilised for  the manufacture  of goods.\t As such  it<br \/>\nwould be  exempt from  the  whole  of  the  duty  of  excise<br \/>\nleviable  thereon  assuming  that  any\tduty  of  excise  is<br \/>\nleviable on  it. Therefore,  we fail  to see how any duty of<br \/>\nexcise can  be levied  on any  part  of\t pyrolysis  gasolene<br \/>\nmanufactured in the factory of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Pyrolysis gasolene\t being an intermediate product which<br \/>\nis produced  in the  factory of\t the appellant, and it being<br \/>\nutilised for  the manufacture  of other\t goods, it  would be<br \/>\ntotally exempt\tfrom payment of excise duty under the second<br \/>\nexemption notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal\t is, therefore.\t The appellant is not liable<br \/>\nto pay\tany  duty  of  excise  on  pyrolysis  gasolene.\t The<br \/>\nimpugned order\tof Tribunal  is, therefore, set aside. There<br \/>\nwill, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997 Author: M S Manohar Bench: Cji, A.M. Ahmadi, Sujata V. Manohar PETITIONER: M\/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALSCORPORATION LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE.VADODARA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/03\/1997 BENCH: CJI, A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2639,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\",\"name\":\"M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997","datePublished":"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997"},"wordCount":2639,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997","name":"M\/S. Indian ... vs Collector Of Central ... on 5 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-25T03:24:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-indian-vs-collector-of-central-on-5-march-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Indian &#8230; vs Collector Of Central &#8230; on 5 March, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}