HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these five appeals arise from common order in Appeal Nos. 348 to 352/97 (M), dated 3 -12 -97 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeals inasmuch as the appellants were not having L6 licence and did not produce the CT -2 certificate from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise.

(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the appellants, ld. Counsel Shri M.V.S. Appa Rao submits that they earlier had L6 Licence which expired on 31 -12 -91 and they could not get the licence renewed. He further submits that the explosives have been used in their mines and it is a procedural lapse which should be condoned, since they have complied with the substantive nature of the Notification. The explosives were used in their mines and were utilised for the manufacture of zinc or lead concentrates. He further pleads that they have submitted the refund applications in the capacity of a purchaser of the explosives in view of the provisions of Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld. Counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat -I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 175 (Tri. - Mum.).

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the Revenue ld. DR. Shri P. Devaludu drew out attention to the Notification No. 7/94 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1994. He further submits that this is a conditional notification and full exemption has not been given to the explosives. He further invited out attention to the conditions which reads as under: