Arihant Solvex Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Jodhpur 1
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 235 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 16-10-2018
Excise Appeal No. E\/52742\/2018 [DB] – A\/53337\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Tangri, Advocate
\nPresent for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, DR
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nThe appellant has challenged the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 148-149 dated 01.06.2018. The facts in brief relevant for the impugned adjudication are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of refined edible oil falling under Chapter No. 15 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants are also engaged in oil refining and manufacturing of gad, sludge, acid oil and spent earth falling under Tariff Item No. 15211090 and 38231900 respectively of the first Schedule of the said Tariff. Departmen<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n and for the normal period of limitation only and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs instead of penalty of Rs. 46,18,619\/- + Rs. 3 lakhs. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is here before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n processing of crude oil and in course of refining of said crude vegetable oils, gad, sludge, acid oil and spent earth, etc. emerge as unavoidable by-products. During the period of dispute, the refined vegetable oil, the final manufactured products of the appellant was exempted from duty under the exemption Notification No. 3\/2006-CE and as such was to be treated as exempted goods. Accordingly, the only point of dispute is: “whether for the purpose of exemption Notification No. 89\/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 which exempt wastage parings and scrap arising in course of manufacture of exempted goods falling within the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, the impugned by-products are to be treated as waste or not.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ted 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 with odour. The process of manufacture is for refined rice bran oil. As such, we note that these incidental products are nothing but waste arising during course of refining of rice bran oil and applying the ratio of Apex court, as discussed above, these cannot be considered as manufactured excisable goods. Noting that the reference is to decide whether these are to be treated as waste for the purpose of exemption Notification 89\/95-CE we note though the excisability of the product itself is seriously in dispute as per the opinion expressed by us, as above, these cannot be considered as anything other than waste and as such will be covered by the exemption Notification No. 89\/95-CE.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n uct and is therefore, eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 89\/95.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Arihant Solvex Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Jodhpur 1Central Excise2019 (1) TMI 235 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 16-10-2018Excise Appeal No. E\/52742\/2018 [DB] – A\/53337\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Tangri, Advocate Present for the Respondent: … Continue reading “Arihant Solvex Pvt Ltd Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Jodhpur 1”<\/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-15965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15965","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=15965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. We have heard Mr. Rahul Tangre, Ld CA for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Mishra, Ld. DR for the Department.
\n3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the Show Cause Notices were duly replied by the appellant vide their letters dated 12.03.2014 and 09.02.2015 respectively duly contesting the allegations in both the Show Cause Notices. It was specifically submitted that the goods in question were waste and since the final goods i.e. refined oil was exempted vide Notification No. 3\/2006-CE, the goods in question were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89\/95-CE and as such no duty was payable on clearance even of the disputed goods. It is submitted that though the Commissioner(Appeals) has reduced the demand to the normal period and has also reduced the penalt<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. This issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in Ricela Health Foods Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh & Allahabad 2016 (331) ELT 313 (Tri. – Del.) wherein vide the interim Order No. 8-11\/2018 dated 30.01.2018 it was held that the r<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn a prior decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. 2010 (249) ELT 70 (Tri. – Bang.) has also held that the goods like <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe goods in dispute herein i.e. gad (gum), sludge (soap stock), acid oil and spent earth merely emerge during the manufacture of refined oil and are completely unintentional by products. Hence, they do not classify the definition of manufactured excisable goods. Since refined oil was exempted good during the relevant period, these by-products are entitled to be treated as exempted by virtue of Notification No. 89\/95-CE. The moot controversy therefore stands decided in affirmative.
\nFurther, we observe that Ld. Commissioner has already dropped the demand for the extended period. However, while confirming the demand for the normal period, he has relied upon M\/s AG Fats and Ors. 2012 (277) ELT 96 (Tri. – Del.) but the said matter received a contradictory opinion in Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. Case 2014 (299) ELT 116 (Tri. – Mum.). It is thereafter that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Ricela Health Fo<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n