9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Notification, the view which is more beneficial to the assessee has to be applied. In this case, the appellant felt that payment/discharge of duty of ₹ 1/- per kg. on the unit containers of refined edible oil manufactured by them would be more advantageous to him and has chosen to do so. When the Notification itself gives two options, the choice of the appellant to choose an option which is beneficial to him cannot be faulted with. - as it is seen that entry no. 244 (B) & (C) do not have any condition and are also not mutually exclusive. It is settled law that when there are two views possible on notification, the view which is more beneficial to the assessee is to be applied. In this case appellant feels that payment at dischar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dible soya oil on payment of duty and repacked the same in smaller packing of 1,2 and 5 liters and cleared the same on payment of duty in terms of the notification no. 37/03-CE dated 30.04.2003. Revenue is of the view that in terms of notification no. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by notification no. 37/03-CE dated 30.04.2003 the 100% soya refined edible oil manufactured out of refined edible oil on which appropriate duty of excise has already been paid attracts nil rate of duty. Therefore, appellant was not required to pay duty at the time of clearance of repacked refined edible soya oil. As the appellants final product was exempted and therefore, they are not required to pay duty and they are not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken any activity of process namely treatment with alkali acid, bleaching or deodorization, etc. Therefore, clause (C) at SI. No. 244 of the notification is not applicable to the appellant and as per Chapter note 4 of Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 the activity of repacking from bulk to retail pack amounts to manufacture as the appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and covered by clause (B) of SI. No. 244 of the notification is liable to pay duty at the rate of ₹ 1 per kg and paying duty on their product. Therefore, their product cannot be said as exempted goods. Consequently, impugned proceedings are to be set aside. To support this contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1 The appellant is manufacturing packed refined edible oil processed from seed extraction and crude oil and clearing the same to ATFL on payment of appropriate duty after packing into unit containers of 500 ml / 1 ltr / 5 ltrs, and is charging ₹ 2002 per Metric Tonne from ATFL for processing the crude oil to refined oil and packing into unit container. Occasionally, ATFL provide the refined edible oil in bulk purchased from outside on payment of duty of Rs, 1/- per kg.The appellant is repacking the same and clearing it ATFL on payment of duty of ₹ 1/- per kg. and taking into credit the duty paid on refined oil provided by ATFL Besides the above, the appellant is also taking into credit of the duty paid on packing material used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the purpose of this exemption, refined edible oil means fixed vegetable oils, which subsequent to their expression or extraction, have undergone any one or more of the following processes, namely:- (a) treatment with alkali or, acid; (b) bleaching; and (c) deodorization, and conforms to the standards of refined vegetable oil read with the standards for the specified edible oils, as prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) and rules made thereunder. Nil It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the Notification that the said Notification gives option of either paying duty of ₹ 1/- per kg. or claiming exemption of nil rate of duty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. No. 200 the entry is melting scrap: of iron or steel which earlier excluded the stainless steel and at Sr. No. 202, the entry is scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting. As per Chapter 72, it has been clarified that steel covers stainless steel. So we are of the view that appellant can claim exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 at Sr. No. 200 202 as per the ratio of the case laws discussed above. In this case, the appellants have claimed the exemption at Sr. No. 200, which cannot be denied as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Ltd. 9. We also observed that the appellant is procuring refined edible soya oil and is not engaged in any process namely treatment with alkalies, bleachi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
