2023 (5) TMI 512 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Excise Duty - Spent earth arising during the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil - spent earth being residue / waste is eligible for exemption notification no. 89/95- CE dated 18.05.1995 or not - HELD THAT - The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal s Larger Bench 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 and following the said larger bench judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Revenue s appeal upholding the view taken by the Tribunal. In the case of M/S SHREE FATS PROTIENS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR I 2017 (5) TMI 1449 - CESTAT NEW DELHI this Tribunal has taken a view that recovered oil and tank sledge emerging during refining oil is not liable to central excise duty as the same is either covered under exemption Notification No. 89/95- CE dated 18.05.1995 as waste product or not arising out of manufacturing process as in case of bottom sediments called tank sledge. In the present case also the nature of process and also the goods i.e. spent earth is absolutely identical to the goods in the above decision. The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. C. EX., HYDERABAD-III VERSUS DIVIS LAB 2017 (4) TMI 329 - CESTAT HYDERABAD dealing with the identical nature of goods held that waste obtained as by product during manufacturing process i.e. spent solvent is not excisable as products merely industrial waste and not goods of high purity. In the same decision it was further held that issue relating to dutiability of spent earth arising as residue in process of refining crude palm oil was considered in Jaimini edibles and facts India Pvt ltd and decided in assessee s favour. The Revenue has contended that as per the amendment in section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 all the goods arising during manufacture is liable to duty. On going through amended Section 2 (d) it is found that section 2 (d) does not decide what is manufacture and what is not manufacture. Even though the Section 2 (d) was amended but the definition of manufacture under section 2 (f) remains same before and after amendment in section 2 (d). When based on the process it was found that the process of generation of spent earth is not such which falls under the definition of manufacture given in section 2 (f) the amendment of section 2 (d) will not have any effect. Therefore, the revenue s contention on the amendment of 2 (d) is not of any help to them. The spent earth generated in the manufacture of refined oil is not liable for excise duty. Accordingly, the impugned orders are not sustainable hence, the same are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether spent earth arising during the manufacture of refined vegetable oil is a manufactured good liable for excise duty.
2. Whether spent earth, being residue/waste, is eligible for exemption under notification no. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that spent earth is not a manufactured good but a residue, thus not subject to duty. Even if considered a manufactured good, it qualifies for exemption under notification no. 89/95-CE. Citing various judgments, including Ricela Health Foods Ltd and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Marico Ltd, it was contended that spent earth is not liable for duty.

2. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, supported the impugned order's findings.

3. The Tribunal considered past decisions, notably Ricela Health Foods Ltd, and Shree Fats and Proteins Pvt Ltd, where it was held that waste products from refining oil are not excisable. The nature of the process and the goods in question were found to be similar to previous decisions, supporting the non-liability of spent earth for excise duty.

4. The Revenue argued that all goods arising during manufacture are dutiable under the amended section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal found that the process of generating spent earth did not fall under the definition of manufacture in section 2(f), rendering the amendment in section 2(d) irrelevant.

5. Relying on precedent and the analysis of the process, the Tribunal concluded that spent earth from refined oil manufacture is not subject to excise duty. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the arguments presented, the legal precedents cited, and the final decision reached on the issues concerning the liability of spent earth for excise duty and its eligibility for exemption under the specified notification.