TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Registry. In view of the long standing practice of this Tribunal where condonation of delay is in filing the supplemental appeal. COD application is allowed when the main appeal having been filed within time, the delays are condoned and the applications allowed. 2.Since appeal Nos. E/240 to 250/2000 of G.P. industries and others were also on exactly similar issue, although the orders impugned are different, from the above noted appeals of Andhra Sugars, therefore, by common consent of these appellants, these appeals and the stay petitions are being considered together and disposed of by this common order. 3.Heard Shri T. Ramesh, learned Advocate for G.P. Industries and 10 others and Shri S. Kannan, learned DR for the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of extraction of oil, the Notification concerned is not available to it. The learned Commissioners have clearly held that Oil Extraction Industry is limited to extraction of oil. However, the soap product or Acid oil emerges from the further refining of the oil extracted whereas in the Extraction Industry it is the oil seeds or oil cake which is the input in processing by which the soap stock emerges. Therefore, the learned DRs submit that there is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Commissioners in the orders impugned. 6.On consideration of the merits of the issue we are of the clear view that the matter has been considered in great detail by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of Godrej Foods Ltd. v. CCE (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the factory into one which form part of the solvent extracting industry and another which does not. Such a factory would very much be within the oil mill or solvent extraction industry as the case may be and the benefit of the notification available. 8. Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief. 7.Similarly in CCE v. Mehta Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. case (supra), this issue was considered with respect to the old tariff item No. 68 but same Notification had continued to exist during the period of these appeals also i.e. Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-75. Therein also the Tribunal had relied upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 338 339/93-C, dated 29-10-93 in case of M/s. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Tribunal in the case of Godrej Foods Ltd. (supra) had considered trade notice issued by the Guntur Central Excise Collectorate bearing No. 24/79, dated 21-1-79 on this issue. The Tribunal had noted that the said trade notice was also in consonance with these decisions. Since the trade notice issued is also binding on the Collectorate, therefore, on this ground also the appeals are found to be having great merit. 11.In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, respectfully applying the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Godrej Foods Ltd. (supra) and Mehta Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. (supra), we set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any as per law. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
