TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called as a process of manufacture of these gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour. The process of manufacture is for refined rice bran oil. As submitted by both sides, the decision of Larger Bench was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I VERSUS MARICO LTD. [ 2022 (10) TMI 1174 - SC ORDER] . Coming to the Department s contention that the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR VERSUS AG FLATS LTD. [ 2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] , which was affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court, was not discussed by the Larger Bench will not be of any avail as the decision in the case of M/s Marico Limited is the latest one and requires to be followed, therefore, by following the principles of judicial discipline, it is opined that waste, gums, fatty acids etc. arising during the course of manufacture of vegetable oils are eligible for the exemption Notification No.89/95. Applicability of the Notification No.10/96 dated 23.07.1996 to the plastic/ tin containers manufactured by the appellants - HELD THAT:- Whatsoever, that plastic/ tin containers manufactured and used for packing of the final products i.e. vege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 01.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 4. Excise Appeal No.53401 of 2014 Kissan Fats Limited [Arising out of OIA No.JAL-EXCUS-000- APP-327-13-14 dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 5. Excise Appeal No.53410 of 2014 Kissan Fats Limited [Arising out of OIA No.JAL-EXCUS-000- APP-323-13-14 dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 6. Excise Appeal No. 61359 of 2018 [M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited] [Arising out of OIA No.LUD-EXCUS-001- APP-1405-1407-18 dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Goods Service Tax, Ludhiana] 7. Excise Appeal No. 61462 of 2018 [M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited] [Arising out of OIA No.LUD-EXCUS-001- APP-956-957-18 dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Goods Service Tax, Ludhiana] 8. Excise Appeal No.60671 of 2019 [M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited] [Arising out of OIA No.LUD-EXCUS-001- APP-2346-19 dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Goods Service Tax, Ludhiana] E/55515/2013 others 9. Excise Appeal No. 58648 of 2013 [M/s BCL Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal benches, Larger Bench was constituted in the case of Ricela Health Foods Limited- 2018 (361) ELT 1049 (Tri. LB) held that the fatty acids, waxes and gum arising during the refining of crude vegetable oils are eligible for the benefit of the notification. The decision was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Marico Limited and Others- 2022 (382) ELT436 (SC). Thus, the issue stands settled finally in favour of the appellants. 3. Shri G.S. Sandhe, learned Counsel, further submits that a plain reading of Notification No.89/95 will reveal that three conditions namely (i) the goods should be Waste, Paring and Scrap (ii) the goods should arise in the course of manufacture of Exempted Goods and (iii) the exemption is not available to the unit which manufactures excisable goods other than Exempted Goods . He submits that in respect of Appeal Nos. E/61359/2018, E/61462/2018 and E/60671/2019, the lower authorities, though, followed the decision in the case of Ricela Health Foods Ltd. (supra) wrongly denied the exemption, under Notification No.10/96-CE dated 23.07.1996, on the plastic/ tin containers manufactured and captively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral excise duty. Relying on the earlier decisions in Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.) and CCE, Patna v. Tata Iron Steel Company Ltd. - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.), the Apex Court held that the dross and skimming arising during the course of manufacture of metal cannot be subjected to excise levy only because it may have some saleable 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 1963 SC 791 = 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199) (S.C.). 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 product arising out of a manufacturing process. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained. In this process of refining, the unwanted materials are removed. Hence, we are of the considered view that the removal of unwanted materials resulting in products like gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour cannot be called as a process of manufacture of these gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour. The process of manufacture is for refined rice bran oil. As such, we note that these incidental products are nothing but waste arising during course of refining of rice bran oil and applying the ratio of Apex Court, as discussed above, these cannot be considered as manufactured excisable goods. Noting that the reference is to decide whether these are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption Notification No. 89/95-C.E. 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-C.E. This has been pleaded as an alternate argument by the appellant/assessee also. 8. As submitted by both sides, the above decision of Larger Bench was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
