Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Godavari Edible Bran Oil Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II

2015 (5) TMI 976 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Denial of exemption claim - appellant’s claim for the benefit of Notification No.115/75 as amended which exempts goods manufactured in a factory coming under the category of oil mill or solvent extraction industry - Job work - prescribed procedure not followed - Held that:- 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry 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 after amalgamation. This is because in the case of Prakash Solvex (2008 (1) TMI 328 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), the Tribunal was dealing with a case where only refining was undertaken - There was an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt is engaged in the manufacturing of refined rice bran oil falling under Chapter 15 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Even though the impugned order was passed against M/s. R.R. Refineries Ltd. (RRRL for short), since RRRL has been amalgamated with the appellant, the appellants are pursuing the matter before us. Before amalgamation, the appellant in their factory premises were crushing oil seeds / extracting crude oil from the seeds. Since during the year 2000, appellants .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere 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 exemp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o submit that they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No.115/75. 4. Notification No.115/75 as amended exempts goods manufactured in oil mill and solvent extraction industry. The Honble Supreme Court after considering the submissions in paragraph 3 observed as follows:- 3. The said notification exempts goods manufactured in factories covered by the industries specified in the Schedule. Item 4 of the Schedule specifies the oil mill and solvent extraction industry. It may be that ordinar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the notification, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ufactured in a factory which may qualify as Oil Mill Solvent Extraction Industry , is entitled to exemption. In this view of the matter, the fact that the appellant purchased crude oil and by subjecting the same to refining process manufactured oil is immaterial. As observed in the case of A.P. Solvex Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana (supra), in the absence of any such condition or stipulation therein, the benefit of exemption will be available to all factories covered by oil mill or solvent extraction ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version