M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CGST, Jodhpur
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 393 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 30-8-2018
Appeal No. E\/51871\/2018-DB – A\/52936\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
\nShri G.K. Mahajan, Advocate – for the appellant
\nShri V.B. Jain, D.R. – for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Anil Choudhary:
\nHeard both the parties.
\n2. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of refined oils falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-Heading 15219090. During the relevant period, the refined oils remained exempted on payment of central excise duty vide Notification No. 115\/75-CE dated 30.4.1975. During the process of manufacture of re<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n fication No. 89\/95-CE dated 18.5.1995 and by virtue of this notification, they are not required to pay any duty on such products as mentioned in the show cause notice. The Notification No. 89\/95-CE dated 18\/5\/1995 exempts waste, parings and scrap manufactured in a factory manufacturing some final product which is either chargeable to nil rate of duty or is fully exempted from duty by an exemption notification issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The basic contention of the appellant since beginning has been that the products as mentioned in the foregoing pares arising as waste or by-product during the manufacture of refined edible oil are entitled for the benefit of Notification 89\/95-CE dated 18\/05\/1995. This argument of th<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ure is for refined rice brain oil ; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CGST, JodhpurCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 393 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 30-8-2018Appeal No. E\/51871\/2018-DB – A\/52936\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri G.K. Mahajan, Advocate – for the appellant Shri V.B. Jain, D.R. – for the respondent ORDER Per Anil … Continue reading “M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CGST, Jodhpur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14346","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(c) The items in question cannot be called as manufactured excisable goods. These incidental products are nothing but waste arising during the course of refining of rice brain oil and as such cover by the exemption Notification No. 89\/95-CE.
\n5. Following the above judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Ricela Health Foods Ltd. and ors. vs. CCE, Chandigarh, the Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Allahabad has also extended the benefit of Notification 89\/1995-CE on clearances of waste products such as fatty acid oil, sludge, soap stock (gums) and spent earth generated during the manufacture of refined edible oil.
\n6. In view of above, as the issue involved in the appeal is already settled and followi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n