9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could be demanded on the ground that RFO was used for manufacture of sulphur. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/457/2005 & E/458/2005, E/569/2005 & E/CO/40893/2016 - 40943-40945/2017 - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Appellant Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The present appeals are filed by Revenue challenging various orders-in-appeal as per the following tabulation :- Appeal No: Show Cause notices Order-in-Original Period Demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finery as fuel in the generation of steam. The steam is used for generation of electricity as well as in the manufacturing process of various petroleum products. In the refining process of petroleum products, sulphur is extracted from crude and emerges as a by-product. Removal of sulphur is also mandated by the Pollution Control Board. Sulphur so extracted is cleared by the respondent without payment of duty as the product is exempted. 3. It is the case of the department that fuel oil was used in the refinery in the manufacture of Sulphur, an exempted product and therefore, the benefit of captive consumption Exemption Notification No.67/95-C.E dated 16.03.1995 is not available. The respondent had used 5.39% of the total fuel oil in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Rules, 1944 were in vogue. In that decision, the Tribunal held that the refinery was a deemed warehouse under Rule 143-A and so, the intermediate goods (fuel oil) manufactured and consumed inside a refinery was not dutiable. Whereas, period involved in the present case is divided into two viz., up to June, 2001 when the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was in vogue and from July, 2001 when the rules were replaced with Central Excise Rules, 2001. b) The decision of the Tribunal has raised serious question of law whether the warehouse provisions under Chapter VII will have over-riding effect over Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Besides, the Central Government did not issue any notification under Rule 143-A satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's factory which is cleared without payment of duty. Consequently, the benefit of exemption Notification No.67/95-CE will not be available to the RFO captively consumed in the manufacture of said sulphur. Consequently, the demands are required to be upheld. The Ld. D.R also relied upon the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported in 2008 (228) ELT 533 (Tri.-LB ) wherein it has been held that the warehouse status extended to refineries ceased to have force w.e.f 1.7.2001. 7. Ld. Advocate submitted that Department has relied on Rule 143A in their Appeal to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE. The Respondent at the outset submits that the present Appeal is beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal and reported as 2005 (187) ELT 34 (Tri.-Chennai). We have considered the cited case. The finding of the Tribunal is reproduced below : 10. Following the decision in IOCL's case, we hold that no duty was leviable on any quantity of fuel oil/LSHS used for generating steam required for the refining of crude petroleum (yielding petroleum products) in the appellants refinery during the period of dispute, as we have found that such use of fuel oil/LSHS was covered by the expression conduct such further manufacturing processes under Rule 143A. Naphtha is, admittedly, one of the petroleum products resulting from the refining of crude petroleum. No duty could be levied on fuel oil used for generating steam required for the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
