9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 780 - AT - Central ExciseClearance of by-products/waste without payment of duty - benefit of N/N. 89/1995 dated 18.05.1995 - case of Revenue is that as the appellants are manufacturing other excisable goods, they are not eligible for exemption under N/N. 89/1995 dated 18.05.1995 - Held that - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable oils and the by-products that are incidental to the manufacture and are nothing but waste arising during the course of refining of the oil, the appellants can be held to be manufacturers of such waste products arising during the course of manufacture. The Commissioner has erred in finding that the appellants are not eligible for the N/N. 89/95 because they are manufacturing tins as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Commissioner has not appreciated the fact that the tins manufactured are also eligible for exemption under N/N. 10/96 as submitted by the appellant. The decision 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 squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where it was held that the excisability of the product itself is seriously in dispute as per the opinion expressed by us, as above, these cannot be considered as anything other than waste and as such will be covered by the exemption N/N. 89/95-CE. The appellants are entitled to exemption contained in Notification No. 89/95-CE on the products which arise incidentally to the manufacture of vegetable oils - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Manufacture and clearance of sunflower oil and by-products without duty payment under specific notifications, eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 89/1995, applicability of decisions in similar cases, limitation period for issuing show cause notice, misapplication of exemption notifications, eligibility of tin cans for exemption. Analysis: The appeal pertains to manufacturing and clearing sunflower oil and by-products without duty payment under specific notifications. The Department contended that as the appellants are manufacturing other excisable goods, they are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/1995. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, covering the period from April 2011 to September 2013. The appellants argued that the waste products arising during the refining process should be considered waste and covered by the exemption notification. They cited a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and a Supreme Court judgment to support their claim. The appellants also argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and was hit by limitation as they had specific permission for clearance. They contended that the tins manufactured by them were also exempted goods under a different notification, which the Commissioner failed to consider. The appellants referred to a previous Tribunal order and argued that their case was identical to another company's case where exemption was granted. The AR reiterated the findings of the original order. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the waste products arising during the refining process should be considered waste and covered by the exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner erred in denying the exemption based on the manufacturing of tins, which were also eligible for a different exemption notification. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal to support their conclusion that the waste products should be considered waste and covered by the exemption notification. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 89/1995 for the waste products arising incidentally to the manufacture of vegetable oils. The impugned order was found to have misplaced itself in relation to the tin boxes manufactured and consumed in the factory. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.
|
