M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CCE&CGST, Jaipur-I
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 751 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 9-8-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51756 of 2018 – A\/52975\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nAppellant: Sh. G.K. Mahajan, Adv.
\nRespondent: Sh. V.B. Jain, DR
\nORDER
\nPER ANIL CHOUDHARY:
\nThe present appeal is filed by the Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 85-86(SJ)CE\/JDR\/2018 dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur. The period in dispute is April 2010 to December, 2013.
\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the Appellants were <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n facturing refined edible oil. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued which culminated into impugned order. The basic contention of the Appellant is that, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 89\/95-CE dated 18th February, 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\/02\/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 Appellants since beginning has been that, the<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nd the Tribunal by following the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Ricela Health Foods Ltd. & Ors. Vs CCE, Chandigarh, has allowed the appeal by observing that : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CCE&CGST, Jaipur-ICentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 751 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 9-8-2018Excise Appeal No. 51756 of 2018 – A\/52975\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appellant: Sh. G.K. Mahajan, Adv. Respondent: Sh. V.B. Jain, DR ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The present … Continue reading “M\/s Udyog Mandir Versus CCE&CGST, Jaipur-I”<\/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-14485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14485","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=14485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14485"}],"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“4. The issue involved in this appeal is no longer res-integra as the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in its interim order No. 8-11\/2018 dated 30th January, 2018 has already decided the issue, wherein it has been held that:-
\n (a) The items in dispute are not in the nature of by products emerging during the course of manufacture of refined edible oil;
\n (b) The removal of unwanted materials resulting in products like gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour cannot be called as a process of manufacture of these gums, waxes and fatty acid. The process of manufacture is for re<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n