2000 (8) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the appellants' manufacturing unit for exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E.
2. Interpretation of the term "oil mill and solvent extraction industry" in the context of the Notification.
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions to the appellants' case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the appellants' manufacturing unit for exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E.:
The appellants, an SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of resins and refined Soya and Castor oils, claimed exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. for by-products like soap, spent earth, soya sludge, and soya lecithin. The Department issued show cause notices to recover duty, arguing that the appellants were not an "oil mill and solvent extraction industry" since they did not produce oil by crushing seeds or using solvent extraction in their factory. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) both rejected the appellants' claim for exemption, leading to the present appeal.

2. Interpretation of the term "oil mill and solvent extraction industry" in the context of the Notification:
The core issue was whether the appellants' activities fell under the term "oil mill and solvent extraction industry" as specified in the Schedule to Notification No. 115/75-C.E. The appellants argued that refining crude vegetable oils constituted an oil industry, thus qualifying them for the exemption. However, the lower authorities, supported by the Supreme Court's decision in TOMCO Ltd. v. CCE, held that "oil mill" referred specifically to the extraction of oil from seeds, not the broader oil industry. Consequently, the appellants' refining activities did not qualify for the exemption.

3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions to the appellants' case:
The appellants cited two Tribunal decisions-C.C.E. v. Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. and Godrej Foods Ltd. v. C.C.E.-to support their claim. However, the Tribunal found these cases unhelpful. In Bush Boake Allen, the Tribunal distinguished between essential and non-essential oils but did not address whether refining constituted oil milling. In Godrej Foods, the Tribunal acknowledged that a factory undertaking both extraction and refining could qualify for exemption, but emphasized that a factory only performing downstream processes, like refining, might not. The appellants' activities were limited to refining, without any oil extraction, thus not fitting the criteria for "oil mill and solvent extraction industry."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' activities of refining solvent-extracted vegetable oils did not qualify as "oil milling" or "solvent extraction industry." Consequently, they were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.