9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal rejected the assessee's application for modification of the earlier order dated 6.3.2013, in and by which, the appellant/assessee was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore within a period of eight weeks. 2. The facts, which led to the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, are that the appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of crude oils like cotton seed, sunflower, rice bran, etc., and also manufacturing products like vanaspathi, bakery shortening, etc., which were exempted from excise duty. There are three products viz. Fatty Acid, Soap Stock and Spent Earth, which are resultant products of processing of the refining of crude oil. The question was whether excise duty is leviable on these products. The Revenue's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard, reliance was placed by the assessee on a stay order passed by the Tribunal in respect of an appeal in Appeal No.E/321/2012 dated 17.7.2012, wherein, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. The Revenue resisted the contention raised by the appellant/assessee, by submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE VIZAG V. JOCIL LTD. (2011 (263) ELT 9 (SC)), has held that the Fatty Acid is an excisable product. The further reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decisions of the Tribunal. The Revenue further contended that the stay order granted by the Tribunal on 17.7.2012, in respect of another matter, was made without noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Delhi Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR, reported in 2013-TIOL-978-CESTAT-MUMBAI and therefore, sought for modification of the condition imposed in the said order, and total waiver of pre-deposit. 8. The Tribunal, after taking note of the submission, observed that it had exercised the discretion in the case of the appellant, after noticing that in the earlier case, stay was granted without reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOCIL LTD. (supra). Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no ground to modify the earlier order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/assessee has filed this appeal. 9. Mr.S.Murugappan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, while reiterating the stand taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, has taken note of the product, which is in dispute viz. Palm fatty acid, and exercised discretion and directed the pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore as against the total demand of Rs.1,24,69,314/- as duty and equivalent amount as penalty and Rs.1 crore as penalty on the Managing Director. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that considering the conflicting views of the Tribunal, the assessee prays for reduction in deposit amount. Taking note of the reasons stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee, and the decisions cited supra, we find that interest of justice would be served and the interest of the revenue would also be protected by directing the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
