9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives for the Respondents ORDER Per : P. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited; M/s Kissan Fats Limited and M/s Sangrur Agro Limited, have filed these appeals.The issue being common to all the appeals, they are being taken up together for decision. The appellants are manufacturers of vegetable oils and have availed benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.09.1995 on the fatty acids, acid oils, gum and sludge, waxes and spent earth etc., arising during the manufacture of vegetable oils. The Department contended that the items manufactured do not qualify to be waste in terms of the said notification. In respect of Appeal Nos.E/61359/2018, E/61462/2018 and E/60671/2019, the availment of Notification No.10/1996 by the appellants has been disputed by the Department.Show-cause notices were issued for recovery of duty and penalty and were confirmed by the Original/ Appellate Authorities as mentioned above. The details of the appeals are as follows: Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the Party Impugned order 1. Excise Appeal No. 55515 Of 2013 M/s Kissan Fats Limited [Arising out of OIA No.542- 544/CE/Appeal/CHD-II/2012 dated 01.11.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IA No.164- 167/CE/APPL./CHD-II/2013 dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 13. Excise Appeal No.60722 of 2013 [M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited] [Arising out of OIA No.JAL-EXCUS-000- APP-195-13-14 dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 14. Excise Appeal No.59159 of 2013 [M/s Sangrur Agro Limited] [Arising out of OIA No.187/CE/APPEAL/CHD-II/2013 dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] 2. Shri G.S. Sandhe appearing on behalf of M/s BCL Industries and Infrastructure Limited; M/s Kissan Fats Limited, Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo appearing on behalf of M/s Sangrur Agro Limited, submit that the issue is no longer res integra. Shri G.S. Sandhe, learned Counsel submits that: (i) Tribunal in the case of Priyanka Refineries Ltd. 2010 (249) ELT 70 (Tri. Bangalore) held that soap stocks arising during the manufacture of refining of oil is eligible for exemption under Notification No.89/95; on an appeal filed by the Department, Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Department's appeal 2011 (274) ELT A16 (SC). (ii) CESTAT, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yal, Authorized Representatives, appearing on behalf of the Department submits that though the case has been decided in favour of the Department in the case of M/s A.G. Fats (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s A.P. Solvex (supra). Larger Bench in the case of M/s Ricela Health Foods (supra) though referred to M/s A.P. Solvex did not give any finding with regards to the binding effect of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Marico Limited (supra) wherein M/s A.G. Fats was discussed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the issues raised in the impugned orders are no longer res integra after the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s Ricela Health Foods Ltd. (supra). We find that the Larger Bench has observed as follows: 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record to examine the reference made by the Division Bench. Since the appellants submitted on the excisability itself the first point for decision is the excisability of the products, in question. The appellants strongly contended that even before examining the admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 89/95- C.E. the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce bran oil. As already noted the process is to obtain refined rice bran oil by removing these unwanted products along with spent earth, which when present makes the oil as crude refined oil. 11. The thrust of the arguments by the Revenue is that when a product is capable of being sold for a significant consideration the same cannot be considered as waste. We are unable to accept such summary presumption. Admittedly, in chemical and metallurgical industry when the raw materials are processed with an intended purpose of manufacturing certain final products by a chemical reaction, refining, melting etc. multiple products will result. These products either emerged in the final stage or any of the intermediating stages also. The point for consideration is whether these are to be considered as manufactured goods for excise levy based on the statutory definition for manufacture or should be considered as manufactured goods based on the likely value they may command while selling. We are clear that the value that a product may or may not fetch cannot be a determinative factor to decide whether the same is a manufactured final product/by-product or a waste/refuse arising during the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
