2019 (4) TMI 2123 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under N/N. 89/95-C.E. - fatty acid, wax and gum arising in the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption or not - HELD THAT - The issue has been examined by the larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S RICELA HEALTH FOODS LTD., M/S J.V.L. AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD., M/S KISSAN FATS LIMITED VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH, ALLAHABAD 2018 (2) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and held that the assessee are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. The issue has already been settled by the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves wherein this Tribunal has held that fatty acid, wax and gum arising in the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. ibid. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. ibid. The impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 89/95-C.E. regarding treatment of fatty acid, wax, and gum arising during the manufacture of refined vegetable oil as waste for duty exemption.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, delivered by Member (J) Ashok Jindal, addressed the issue of whether fatty acid, wax, and gum produced during the manufacturing process of refined vegetable oil should be considered waste for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by a larger Bench in the case of Ricela Health Foods Limited, where it was established that the assessee was eligible for exemption under the same notification. The Tribunal noted that the larger bench had already settled the issue by determining that these by-products should indeed be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, affirming their entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistent interpretation and application of legal provisions, as established by previous decisions of the Tribunal. The ruling emphasizes the significance of precedent and the binding nature of decisions made by larger benches within the Tribunal. By aligning with the earlier decision in a similar case, the Tribunal ensures uniformity and predictability in the application of tax laws, providing clarity to taxpayers and promoting fairness in the adjudication process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principle that once an issue has been settled by a higher authority within the judicial hierarchy, subsequent decisions should adhere to that precedent, unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from it.