2001 (1) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 10/96-C.E. for duty demand and penalty imposition based on the use of metal containers for packing vegetable products.
2. Interpretation of the term 'consumed within the factory of their production in the manufacture of goods' in the context of metal containers used for packing Vanaspati.
3. Legislative intent behind Notification No. 10/96-C.E. and its application to goods consumed within the factory.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand and imposed a penalty on the appellants for denying them the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 10/96-C.E. The issue revolved around whether metal containers used for packing vegetable products could be considered as 'consumed' within the factory for the manufacture of goods, specifically Vanaspati. The Revenue argued that the use of containers for packing did not constitute consumption as per the notification's wording.

2. The key point for determination was whether the use of metal containers for packing Vanaspati satisfied the condition of consumption within the factory of their production. The appellants contended that packing in containers was a statutory requirement under various Acts and Rules, and the completion of Vanaspati's manufacture occurred when packed in tin containers. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. V.M. Salgaoncar and Brothers, it was argued that consumption need not lead to the article's non-existence but could encompass any utilization retaining the article's identity.

3. The judgment referenced the legislative intent behind Notification No. 10/96-C.E., issued after granting full exemption to Vanaspati. The Budget Speech highlighted Vanaspati as a mass-consumed item, leading to the exemption. It was concluded that interpreting 'consumption' in the notification as 'use' aligned with the broader fiscal meaning of the term. Consequently, the metal containers used for packing vegetable products were deemed entitled to the exemption, ensuring the legislative intent was not defeated.

4. Considering the legislative background and the broader interpretation of 'consumption,' the Tribunal set aside the duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition, ruling in favor of the appellants. The judgment emphasized aligning the interpretation with legislative intent to uphold the purpose of the exemption notification and grant consequential reliefs to the appellants.