Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur-I

2015 (11) TMI 43 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand u/s 11D - Denial of Cenvat Credit - activity of repacking from bulk to retail pack of refined edible oil - payment of duty in terms of the notification no. 37/03-CE dated 30.04.2003 - Held that:- Notification gives option of either paying duty of ₹ 1/- per kg. or claiming exemption of nil rate of duty on the goods which are refined edible oils and if they are packed into unit containers. It is also seen that Entry Nos. 244(B) and (C) do not have any condition and are also not m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icial to him cannot be faulted with. - as it is seen that entry no. 244 (B) & (C) do not have any condition and are also not mutually exclusive. It is settled law that when there are two views possible on notification, the view which is more beneficial to the assessee is to be applied. In this case appellant feels that payment at discharge of duty at ₹ 1 per kg of unit container of refined edible oil manufactured by them would be more advantageous to them and has chosen to pay them. With n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

circumstances, Cenvat Credit cannot be denaied to the appellant and appellant is availing Cenvat Credit and Paying duty on their final product. Therefore, provisions of section 11D are not applicable to the facts of this case. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/3780/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/52862/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Rahul Tangri, Adv For the Respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 30.04.2003. Revenue is of the view that in terms of notification no. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended by notification no. 37/03-CE dated 30.04.2003 the 100% soya refined edible oil manufactured out of refined edible oil on which appropriate duty of excise has already been paid attracts nil rate of duty. Therefore, appellant was not required to pay duty at the time of clearance of repacked refined edible soya oil. As the appellants final product was exempted and therefore, they are not req .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty on the appellant. Both the lower authorities adjudicated the matter denying Cenvat Credit and confirmed the duty under section 11D of the Act along with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per notification no. 37/2003-CE dated 30.04.2003 (SI. No. 244 (B), 244 (C)) the refined edible oil attracts the duty at the rate of 1 per kg. The refined edible oil a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

retail pack out of bulk packing and appellant has not taken any activity of process namely treatment with alkali acid, bleaching or deodorization, etc. Therefore, clause (C) at SI. No. 244 of the notification is not applicable to the appellant and as per Chapter note 4 of Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 the activity of repacking from bulk to retail pack amounts to manufacture as the appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and covered by clause (B) of SI. No. 244 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. One is without any condition and one is imposing certain conditions. In that case which entry is more beneficial to the appellant, appellant is entitled to take benefit of the said entry. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Ltd. Vs. CCE-2001 (130) ELT 405 (SC) , which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Manglam Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (255) ELT 124 (Tri-Amd). Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR sup .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red by the appellant is exempted as per clause (C) of the SI. No. 244 of the Notification or is liable to duty as per clause B of SI. No. 244 of the Notification or not. Identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sariba Agro Ltd. (Supra) wherein the facts of the case are as under:"2.1 The appellant is manufacturing packed refined edible oil processed from seed extraction and crude oil and clearing the same to ATFL on payment of appropriate duty after packing into unit conta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

into credit of the duty paid on packing material used for packing the refined edible oil manufactured by him as well as supplied by the ATFL." 7. We have also exempted notification which is reproduced here for better appreciation: 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellants are procuring duty paid refined edible oil in bulk form by availing Cenvat credit and repacking the same into unit containers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er than refined edible oils Nil (B) Refined edible oils Re. one per kilogram (C) Refined edible oils, if manufactured out of refined edible oils on which the appropriate, duty of excise under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) or as the case may be, the additional customs duty under the customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has already been paid. Explanation - For the purpose of this exemption, "refined edible oil" means fixed vegetable oils, which su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification gives option of either paying duty of ₹ 1/- per kg. or claiming exemption of nil rate of duty on the goods which are refined edible oils and if they are packed into unit containers. It is also seen that Entry Nos. 244(B) and (C) do not have any condition and are also not mutually exclusive. It is a settled law that when there are two views possible on a Notification, the view which is more beneficial to the assessee has to be applied. In this case, the appellant felt that paymen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re two views possible on notification, the view which is more beneficial to the assessee is to be applied. In this case appellant feels that payment at discharge of duty at ₹ 1 per kg of unit container of refined edible oil manufactured by them would be more advantageous to them and has chosen to pay them. With notification itself give 2 options. Choice of the appellant to chose an option which is more beneficial to them cannot be faulted with. Same view was taken by this Tribunal in the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version