TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise licence therefor and without observing due formalities in connection therewith. They replied contending that fish meal as well as fish oil were exempted and that though they had applied for licence the same had been returned with audit and that they had not, therefore, committed any contravention. They further claimed that the demand was time-barred. 2. Under order dated 8-6-1984 the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin held the charges established and imposed penalties [Rs. 1000/- under rule 9(2), ₹ 500/- under rule 52A, ₹ 1,000/- under rule 222 and ₹ 5,000/-under rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules], and also demanded payment of duty on the clearances amounting to ₹ 8,43,376.05 during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that fish oil is an oil, though in connection with the applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE the Additional Collector had held against the appellants, based on the words in the notification. 6. Notification No. 115/75 wholly exempts from excise duty goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and manufactured in the factories covered by any of the industries specified in the Schedule to the Notification. Item No. 4 of the Schedule to the Notification reads : Oil Mill and Solvent Extraction Industry . Shri Chidambaram contends that the extraction of fish oil would fall under the words Oil Mill Industry . But the Additional Collector had rejected this contention. He had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It may be noted that the appellants themselves do not refer to the same as a `fish oil plant or a `fish oil mill . The words used by them are as follows : Our manufacturing process is carried out by an Imported Compact fish meal plant and operation is carried out in an automatic manner. Further, in their letter dated 13-10-1980 they had stated as follows : For this we had imported a complete fish meal plant from Norway in 1976 and for which we have undertaken to the Government to export at least 75% of our production of fish meal annually. Fish oil, our by-product, has so far been for inland consumption only. 8. From the above statements of the appellants themselves it is fully clear that the factory of the appellants was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department, the appellants had been making no reference to any benefit under Notification No. 115/75 but were claiming benefit under other notifications only even as far as fish oil is concerned, and that the first occasion they claimed benefit under Notification No. 115/75 was only when, on 27-6-1983, they sent a reply to the show cause notice. These facts would support our conclusion that the appellants were never thinking of their factory as an oil mill, until they chose to put forward this ground six years after the factory was started. 12. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides we are satisfied that the appellants are not entitled to benefit under Notification No. 115/75 in respect of the fish oil ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt, true that there had been extended correspondence between the appellants and the department from 1977 onwards. It is also true that the department had been put on notice that fish meal as well as fish oil was being manufactured by the appellants in their factory. In this sense there cannot be said to have been any suppression of facts on these matters. But it is to be noted that as early as 13-10-1977 the appellants had been informed by the department that the goods manufactured by them were liable to duty under Tariff Item 68 and that they should, therefore, obtain licence also therefor. When the appellants appear to have applied for a licence under letter dated 9-5-78, the department had replied under letter dated 15-5-78 that the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
