1998 (3) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983 to the oils manufactured by the appellants.
2. Validity of the demand for vegetable oil cess on oils extracted from oil cakes.
3. Time limitation for the demand and the validity of the extended period.
4. Levying of cess on stocks of oils manufactured prior to specific dates.
5. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants contended that the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983, was not applicable to the oils they manufactured. They argued that the National Oilseeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board was constituted after the relevant period, and thus, no cess could be levied before that date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had not interpreted the term "vegetable oil" in a previous case, leaving the question open.

Issue 2: The department confirmed the demand for vegetable oil cess based on the appellants' failure to contest the show cause notice. However, the appellants argued that the products manufactured by them did not fall within the definition of "vegetable oil" under the Act. They maintained that the vegetable oil produced by them from oil seeds and oil cakes through solvent extraction did not qualify as "vegetable oil."

Issue 3: The appellants argued that the demand was beyond the period of limitation. They contended that they had filed returns and maintained records as required, which showed no suppression of facts. They challenged the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation and argued that the demand should be set aside.

Issue 4: The appellants raised concerns about levying cess on stocks of oils manufactured before specific dates. They highlighted that no cess could be collected for periods before the constitution of the National Oilseeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board and the framing of the Vegetable Oil Cess Rules.

Issue 5: The department imposed a penalty on the appellants, which the appellants contested. They argued that the controversy about the Act's validity was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and they had been regularly filing returns. The appellants claimed that the non-payment of duty was not deliberate and that the department was aware of the circumstances.

The Tribunal granted an unconditional stay and decided to hear the main appeal. It observed that the authorities had not duly considered all relevant aspects and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded for re-consideration, emphasizing the need for a finding on the definition of "vegetable oil" and other relevant aspects, as well as compliance with principles of natural justice.