KOTHARI PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department and Mr. R. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the 5th Respondent.

(3.) BOTH according to the petitioner and according to the Respondents 1 to 4, the 5th Respondent sends PBFS through pipeline to the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner extracts Poly Iso Butylene from the input sent by the 5th Respondent and the petitioner sends back the remnants, to the 5th Respondent. The Respondents 1 to 4 themselves, have worked out on the basis of the meter readings and estimate of the process engineering that what is extracted by the petitioner accounts for 17% and what is sent back is 83% of the Feed Stock.