TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under the category of oil mill or solvent extraction industry on the ground that the factories involved in refining and extracting crude oil are separate and to get the benefit of exemption, entire activity has to be in one factory - factories which are engaged in extracting crude oil and refining the same would be covered by the term ‘oil mill and solvent extraction industry’. The decisions also support the claim that even if a factory is engaged only in refining, it would be still covered by the terms used in the notification. That being the position, the appellant is clearly eligible for the benefit of Notification No.115/75 CE as amended. It has to be noted that the decisions applied to the situation prior to amalgamation as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts were cleared from the premises of RRRL to the appellants customers. When the contract was entered into, there was no duty on refined oil. Investigations were commenced in May 2004. As a result of which, proceedings were initiated which has culminated in confirmation of demand for Central Excise duty of ₹ 1,40,97,966/- for the period from June 2001 to February 2006. Penalty under Section 11AC also was imposed. 2. In the impugned order, it has been held that the prescribed procedure under Notification No.214/86 was not followed and therefore RRRL or the appellant is liable to pay duty. The Commissioner also considered the appellant s claim for the benefit of Notification No.115/75 as amended which exempts goods manufactured in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, receive the benefit of the exemption that it confers. 5. In the present case, exemption has been denied on the ground that before amalgamation or after amalgamation of RRRL and the appellant, the two factories were separate. One factory extracted oil and the other factory refined it. After 2002 after amalgamation, the two factories belonged to the same appellant. 6. Further the learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Solvex Vs. CCE [2008(229) ELT 565 (Tri. Del.)]. Paragraph 6 of the decision is relevant and is reproduced below:- 6. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned DR for the simple reason that what is exempted in the notification is the goods (other than e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly eligible for the benefit of Notification No.115/75 CE as amended. It has to be noted that the decisions applied to the situation prior to amalgamation as well as after amalgamation. This is because in the case of Prakash Solvex (supra), the Tribunal was dealing with a case where only refining was undertaken. 8. There was an alternative claim made for the benefit of Notification No.89/95 which exempts waste, parings and scrap arising during the manufacture of exempted goods. We do not consider it necessary to go into this claim. 9. Since, we have decided the issue in favour of the appellants on merits, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (Operative part of this order pronounced in cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
