9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture vegetable oil under chapter Heading 1504.00. The Notification No. 115/86-C.E. granted exemption from the Central Excise duty to the vegetable products in the manufacture of which certain minor oils including rice bran oil are used. The appellants with a view to availing exemption under this notification filed declaration with the Asstt. Collector indicating mixture formula of oils as 1. Rice Bran Oil 5%. 2. Mahuwa Oil 8%. 3. Other Oils 87%. A sample was drawn from soft oil tank and sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Examiner for testing whether it contains Mahuwa or any other oil. Chemical Examiner under his letter dated 18-12-1986 reported that The sample is ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Officer and it did not conform to the specifications of Mahuwa Oil in respect of Iodine value as laid down in IS : 545. 4. The Additional Collector on receipt of this report held that I have examined this position and fact in view of the specific certificate of the Chemical Examiner that sample did not conform to the specification of Mahuwa Oil in respect of Iodine value as laid down in IS : 545, the compliance of the Collector (Appeals) order dated 23-2-1989 was complete. He, therefore confirmed the demand of Rs. 91,326.00 holding that this was the amount of wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 115/86. In appeal, the Collector (A) held as indicated above. 5. Arguing the case, Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not contain Mahuwa Oil. Ld. JDR submits that the declaration was filed by the assessee stating that the vegetable product manufactured out of mixture containing 8% Mahuwa Oil was wrong. He submits that when the sample was retested and the Chemical Examiner had not only reported the earlier but had also referred to Iodine value and IS : 545. He submits that the plea of the appellant is not tenable to say that no second test was undertaken and the earlier findings were reiterated. He, therefore, submits that the lower authorities have rightly accepted the test report and hold that the concession under Notification No. 115/86 was not admissible to the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be rejected. 7. Heard the rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
