9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the monthly RT 12 returns filed by the appellants in respect of VNE oils that they had cleared quantities of refined Sal oil for the manufacture of the product called Covo during the period 1975 to December, 1981 without payment of Central Excise duty due thereon because they had manufactured and cleared refined sal oil without determination and payment of Central Excise duty and without cover of Central Excise documents. 7 show cause notices were issued as follows : Sl. No. SCN demand Notice No. date Period Qty removed Duty involved 1. CEX.13.VNE/Sal/HLL/80/29-5-1980 1975 to 1979 7164=520 7,52,274.60 2,90,395.56 2. CEX.13.VNE/Sal. 79-80 18-3-1980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of manufacture of the final product has been given in the flow chart, from there it is seen that raw sal oil is taken up for processing and as a result of that processed sal oil emerges which is used in the manufacture of soap and is hence exempted under Notification No. 33/63. Side by side, the processing also results in sal stearine which the appellants are exporting under the brand name Covo. It was submitted that sal stearine is not a new product and it remained as sal oil only. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector v. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 287 (S.C.) was cited in support. IT was further argued that no duty can arise on sal stearine exported as Covo because the entire quantity is export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of monthly RT 12 returns of the manufacturer, for demanding duty under Rule 9(2). Another point urged on limitation was that the Commissioner himself in the impugned order has held that it is not a fit case for imposing penalty. 5. Shri Ramtake, the ld. DR contended that the product called covo which emerged as an intermediate product is distinct from sal oil and it has different use and characteristic. Therefore, facts are distinguishable from that of Jayant Oil Mills Ltd. decided by the Supreme Court. The ld. DR also relied upon the judgment in the case of J.K. Spinning Weaving Mills v. U.O.I. of the Supreme Court [1997 (32) E.L.T. 234] holding that Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules relating to clearances from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a new product as even according to appellants, it has different name, use and characteristic. It is a cocoa butter substitute. However, we find force in the contention that the entire quantity of sal stearine is exported on payment of duty under Tariff Item 12 of Central Excise Tariff and that there is effectively no case for demanding duty because on proof of export of the quantity the appellant is entitled to claim rebate of duty as per Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. The Trade Notice of the Collectorate will be relevant in this regard. It relates to a doubt raised regarding goods which are exported without payment of duty under bond in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules and it says - a doubt has been raised as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T manufactured during the month has been exported giving reference to the Gate Passes under which duty has been paid thereon. This is a verifiable data and the Commissioner could have had verified to see whether the claim is substantiated. There will be a further corroborative evidence of such claim by way of sanction of their rebate claim by the concerned Maritime Collector because the rebate is granted only on production of proof of export of the goods. 7. Arguments have also been addressed on limitation with which we are inclined to agree because it is clear that the short levy charged in the show cause notice has been made out on the basis of particulars in the RT 12 returns already filed by the appellants and in such a context and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
