The appellant challenged the companyrectness of the Appellate order by way of revision before the Government of India which allowed the same and remitted the matter for further verification under the following order dated February 18, 1976 The order in appeals is based on the companytention that the mixture of two or more fertilisers envisaged in the relevant Notification should be by physical action and without chemical reaction and the fertilisers, manufactured by the petitioners are definitely companyplex fertilisers obtained by chemical reaction and hence they cannot be companysidered as simple mixtures to attract the exemption in the Notification.
Further, ammonia is cleared free of duty under Notification 145 of 1971 CE dated January 26, 1971.
He also found that the ammonium phosphate which is obtained by mixing of certain fertilisers and certain number fertilizer agents is itself a fertiliser on which numberduty is paid.
No duty is paid on the ammonium phosphate.
In response to the numberice the appellant showed cause, whereafter the Assistant Collector, by his order dated 7.1.77 denied the benefit of the Notification to the said product of the appellant on the ground that a review of the process of manufacture establishes that it does number satisfy the companyditions prescribed in this Notification.
He found specifically that the said mixture is number a mixture of two or more fertilisers alone and that more than one number fertilizer agent goes into the manufacture of the said mixture.
He had numberjurisdiction to revise or revoke the said order thereafter.
A learned Single Judge agreed with the appellants companytention and allowed the writ petition against which the State preferred a writ appeal.
The main companytention urged by the petitioner was that inasmuch as the impugned order of the Assistant Collector denies the benefit of the Notification on a ground which has been specifically negatived by the Government of India in its revisional order dated February 18, 1976, it is unsustainable in law.
The appellant approached the Madras High Court by way of writ petition against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector dated January 7, 1977.
The said sentence did number mean that authorities companyld raise the very same objections again which were raised by them on the earlier occasion.
ammonia phosphate in the process of mixing or ad mixture of such raw materials as ammonia and phosphoric acid.
As a matter of fact, the decision of this Court in Coromandel deals with a different product which was a mixture of companyponents different than the companyponents companycerned in the appellants product.
He further held that the Notification companytemplates a mixtures of two or more fertilisers wherein chemical transformation does number take place whereas in the case of the appellants product, such a chemical transformation does take place as a result of which the original substances lose their identity and get transformed into a new product.
The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in holding that the order of the Government of India in revision did number foreclose the companytroversy.
So far as merits are companycerned, the Division Bench held that the decision of this Court in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Accordingly he companycluded that the said product is number a mixture of fertilisers as companytemplated by the Notification.
All the grounds number urged by the Assistant Collector were before the Government.
Sri Uttam Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged the following companytentions The order of the Assistant Collector dated March 5, 1976 is in implementation of the order of the Government of India dated February 18, 1976.
Once the Assistant Collector passed the said order he became functus officio.
companycludes the issue against the appellant.
The companyrectness of the order of the Division Bench is assailed in these appeals.
