2013 (12) TMI 458 - HC - Central Excise

Modification of order Reduction of Pre-deposits ordered Leviability of Excise duty on fatty acid - Held that - The residues were in the form of Gums/Waxes and Recovered Oil/Fatty Acids and those goods are marketable, and considering the factual situation and considering the Notification, the Tribunal granted the relief - palm fatty acid is the main disputed item Following CCE VIZAG V. JOCIL LTD. 2010 (12) TMI 24 - Supreme Court of India - palm stearin emerging as a by-product during the manufacture of crude oil, is a dutiable product and classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - the issue has to be decided only at the final adjudication of the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal - Appellant is directed to deposit reduced amount of Rupees Seventy Five lakhs as pre-deposits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's rejection of the assessee's application for modification of the earlier order.
2. Contention whether excise duty is leviable on products like Fatty Acid, Soap Stock, and Spent Earth.
3. Tribunal's direction for pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore by the appellant/assessee.
4. Assessee's application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues.
5. Conflict between the appellant/assessee and the Revenue regarding exemption eligibility.
6. Consideration of the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of MAHESWARI SOLVENT EXTRACTION LTD.
7. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JOCIL LTD. case.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for modification of the earlier order, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore within eight weeks. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing crude oils and related products, contested the leviability of excise duty on products like Fatty Acid, Soap Stock, and Spent Earth, claiming exemption under various notifications.

2. The Revenue issued show cause notices to the appellant for different periods, alleging duty amounts. The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No.89/95-CE and contended that the disputed products were waste arising from refining crude oil, thus not dutiable. The Revenue cited legal precedents to support the duty imposition.

3. The Tribunal, considering the contentions, directed the pre-deposit based on the Supreme Court's decision classifying similar products as dutiable. The appellant failed to comply within the set timeframe but sought modification citing a Mumbai Tribunal case. However, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, leading to the appeal.

4. The appellant's counsel emphasized the Mumbai Tribunal's decision and requested a reduction in the deposit amount due to conflicting views. The High Court balanced the interests of justice and revenue by reducing the deposit to Rs.75,00,000 within six weeks, pending final adjudication before the Tribunal.

5. The High Court modified the Tribunal's order, requiring the appellant to deposit a reduced amount within the specified time. The decision aimed to ensure fairness while protecting revenue interests. The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed without costs, closing connected matters.

By addressing the issues comprehensively, the High Court provided a detailed analysis of the legal arguments and precedents involved in the case, ultimately modifying the Tribunal's order to balance the interests of the appellant and the Revenue pending final adjudication.