9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.L. AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD., M/S KISSAN FATS LIMITED VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH, ALLAHABAD [ 2018 (2) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] through detailed chart explained the process of manufacturing of refined rice bran oil and generation of waste at each stage of manufacture. There is nothing on record to show that the manufacturing of acid oil is excluded from the said process of manufacturing of edible oil. The issue whether acid oil can be treated as a waste during the course of manufacture was considered in the case of M/S VINAYAK AGROTECH LTD. VERSUS CCE ST, JAIPUR I [ 2017 (11) TMI 598 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , and it is categorically held that acid oil is a waste and not a by-product. Hence eligible for the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd with interest and imposed equal penalty for the period 01.03.2006 to 31.10.2007 and also confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalty for the period from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2008. Further penalties were imposed on Shri V. Subhan Khan Managing Director of M/s M.K. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. 3. The appellants, preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide Order in-Appeal No. 69/2010 dated 04.02.2010, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, interest and penalty imposed for the period prior to 01.05.2008 on the ground that acid oil, fatty acids, gums and waxes were eligible for exemption under Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 as the same were waste, which arose during the course of manufacture of refined edi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod after 10.05.2008 and they were adjudicated. The appeals having Excise Appeal No.20154 of 2018, Excise Appeal No.20521 of 2018 and Excise Appeal No.20952 of 2018 are also filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demand with interest and imposition of penalty for the period after 10.05.2008. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of Appellate Authority are contradictory and unsustainable. Once the Appellate Authority accepted that the goods cleared till 10.05.2008 are non-excisable, since they are waste, the very same goods cannot be treated as excisable goods for the period after 10.05.2008. He further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value, observing that the term manufacture implies a change; every change, however, is not a manufacture Every change of an article may be the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. The manufacture would imply something more. There must be a transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a descriptive name, character or use (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. - AIR 63 SC 791). The Apex court categorically held that dross do not answers the description of waste and scrap . 10. In view of the ratio adopted by the Apex court while arriving at the above decisions, the point for consideration in the present dispute is the gums, waxes and fatty acid that emerge as a by-product can be considered as a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide whether these are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption Notification 89/95-CE. We note though the excisability of the product itself is seriously in dispute as per the opinion expressed by us, as above, these cannot be considered as anything other than waste and as such will be covered by the exemption Notification No. 89/95-CE. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant also placed on record the following case laws: Vinayak Agrotech Ltd., Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I, 2017 (11) TMI 598- CESTAT NEW DELHI. Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CGST, Jodhpur 1, 2019 (1) TMI 235- CESTAT NEW DELHI. CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Shree Jindal Proteins Ltd. and Sangrur Agro Ltd., 2018 (3) TMI 915-CESTAT CHANDIGARH. Adani Wilmar Ltd., Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the permissible limit of Rs.3 crore in a financial year, if the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods is assessed by excluding the value of clearance of non-excisable goods. 12. On the other hand, learned AR submitted that in the present case, the investigation was conducted on the basis of credible intelligence that assessee was indulging in clandestine clearance of acid oil, fatty acids, gums and waxes manufactured by them to avoid payment of Central Excise duty. Acid oil was not a by-product /waste arising during the manufacture of edible oil and that the same was an excisable product being intentionally manufactured and cleared by assessee. 13. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and also cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
