Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 15 September, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.





		Date of Hearing/Order :  15.9.2014

                                                 

                  

No. E/Stay/61247/2013 and E/60285/2013-EX(DB) 



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 92(VC)CE/JPR-I/2013 dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur]



For Approval & Signature :



Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)



1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?



M/s Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd.                                                     Appellant



Vs.



CCE, Jaipur-I                                                                      Respondent

Appearance:

Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate - For the Appellant Ms. Sweta Bector, D.R. - for the Respondent Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) F. Order No. 53656/2014 Per R.K. Singh :
The appellants have filed this stay application along with their appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 92(VC)CE/JPR-I/2012 dated 31.7.2012 which upheld the Order-in-Original No. 155(CE)JP-I/2012 dated 20.9.2012. In terms of the said order-in-original demand of Rs.20,71,909/- along with interest and equal mandatory penalty was confirmed. While confirming the demand the adjudicating authority held that Gad, Sludge, Acid Oil & Spent Earth obtained in the course of refining of vegetable oil is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 85/95-CE dated 18.5.1995.

2. The appellants have stated that the issue is covered by judgement of the Honble CESTAT in the case of Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur  2014 (299) ELT 116 (Tri.-Mumbai) and also by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus.  2003 (153) ELT 491 (SC).

3. As the issue is claimed to be covered by judicial pronouncements, with the consent of ld. AR, we proceed to decide the appeal waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.

4. We have considered the facts of the case and appellants contention. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus. (supra) has held that spent earth remained earth even after the processing and therefore no duty is leviable on spent earth. It is also seen that in the case of Maheshwari Solvent Extraction Ltd. (supra), the Honble CESTAT held that impurities consisting of gums, waxes and fatty acids are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 89/95-CE. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Shree Siddhi Vinayaka Agro Extractions P. Ltd.  2010-TIOL-183-CESTAT-BANG. the Honble CESTAT held that soap stock and wax emerging during process of manufacture of vegetable refined oil is waste and not a by-product and is therefore eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 89/95.

5. In view of the foregoing, we find that the issue is no longer res integra. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 2