9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the schedule to the said notification - Do not find any fault in the impugned order granting the benefit of exemption notification to the assessee. - E/334 of 2005 with C.O. No. 151 of 2006 - 383/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 20-4-2011 - Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Appellants : Rep. by Shri V.C. Choudhary, DR Respondent : [Request for adjournment] Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the DR for the Revenue none present for the respondents though served. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 03.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Indore. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the adjudicating authority was allowed and the order of the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the demand which came to be set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard the DR and also perused the records with the assistance of DR. 6. The DR while drawing our attention to Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.04.75 submitted that taking into consideration the undisputed fact as revealed from the statement of the Assistant Company Secretary and authorised signatory of the respondents and the clear finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority about the process of refining carried out by the respondents, it is evident that the respondent were not entitled to claim benefit of the said notification. According to DR, the notification clearly requires the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notification. In the case in hand, it cannot be said that the respondents do not own and possess any of the such factory. In fact, it is the case of the department itself as revealed from the show cause notice issued to the respondents that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of de-oiled cake and refined soya oil out of soyabean seeds. It is the case of the respondents that they have oil mill and solvent industry. Perusal of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the fact that the respondents do possess such industry was never disputed. The entire dispute which was sought to be raised related to the process undertaken by the respondents in order to deny the benefit of the said notification. 9. In the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Rajadhiraj Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise, Indore reported in 1994 (69) ELT 148 (Tri.), M.P. Dyechem Industries vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2001 (136) ELT 579 (Tri.). Both the decisions were delivered in the peculiar facts of those cases which are totally different from the facts of the case in hand. In neither of the cases the issue was whether the manufacturer having any of the industries in terms of the description to the schedule to the said exemption notification would be entitled for benefit thereunder even though the process involved did not include milling and, therefore, those decisions can be of no help to the appellants in the matter in hand. 12. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
