Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Priyanka Refineries Pvt Ltd Unit I I vs Rangareddy - G S T on 29 October, 2025
(1) Appeal No. E/30993 &
31130/2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. - I
Excise Appeal No. 30993 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-002-APP-021-17-18 dated 05.06.2017
passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad)
M/s Priyanka Refineries Pvt Ltd., .. APPELLANT
Unit II, Sy No. 479P to 482P,
Mankhal Village,
Maheshwaram (M),
Rangareddy,
Telangana - 501 359.
VERSUS
Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT
Rangareddy - GST H.NO. 1-98-7-43, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081.
AND Excise Appeal No. 31130 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-002-APP-056-18 dated 31.07.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Hyderabad) M/s Priyanka Refineries Pvt Ltd., .. APPELLANT Unit II, Sy No. 479P to 482P, Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram (M), Rangareddy, Telangana - 501 359.
VERSUS Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT Rangareddy - GST H.NO. 1-98-7-43, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 081.
APPEARANCE:
Shri P. Sai Makarand & Ms Nandini, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri V R Pavan Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30455-30456/2025 Date of Hearing:29.10.2025 Date of Decision:29.10.2025 (2) Appeal No. E/30993 & 31130/2017 [ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD] M/s Priyanka Refineries Pvt Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as appellant) have come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-002-APP-
021-17-18 dated 05.06.2017 and Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-002- APP-056-18 dated 31.07.2017, whereby, the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of refined sunflower oil, falling under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff, which is exempt from payment of duty under Sl. No. 9 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. In the course of refining crude sunflower oil, certain residues emerge, namely sunflower mud, soap stock, gums, wax, fatty acids and spent earth. Department felt that these residues fall under Heading 1522 00 20/90 of the Central Excise Tariff and leviable to duty, alleging that they are the by-products.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case namely Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs Priyanka Refineries Ltd., [2010 (249) ELT 70 (Tri-Bang)], the Tribunal held that soap stock which emerges during the refining of edible oil is waste, not a by-product. The Tribunal rejected the Department's attempt to classify the same under Heading 1522 merely on the ground that it fetched some price. It was held that mere saleability does not convert waste into a manufactured product. This decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Priyanka Refineries Ltd., [2011 (274) ELT A16 (SC)] by dismissing the Department's Civil Appeal, thereby granting finality to the Tribunal's View. Learned Counsel also submits that in their own case, this Hyderabad Bench vide Final Order No. A/30331/2025 dated 01.09.2025 took (3) Appeal No. E/30993 & 31130/2017 the same view and allowed the appeals. Therefore, she prays that these appeals may be allowed on the same ground.
4. Learned AR for the Department reiterates the findings in the impugned order.
5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned AR for the Revenue and perused the records.
6. The precise issue which falls for consideration in this case is whether the appellant M/s Priyanka Refineries Private Ltd., Unit II is liable to pay excise duty on sunflower mud, soap stock, gums, wax, fatty acids, spent earth and similar residues which arise in the process of refining of crude sunflower oil into refined oil. The appellant refines crude sunflower oil and produces refined oils and in the process these products emerge. The case of the Department is that the appellant is liable to pay on excise duty of these products fall under Central Excise Tariff heading 1522 00 20/90 of the Central Excise Tariff. We find that in the appellant's own case, a Co-ordinate of this Tribunal has, in the case of Commissioner Vs Priyanka Refineries Ltd., [2010 (249) ELT 70 (CESTAT-Bang)] held that mere saleability of the waste product does not make it a manufacture product and therefore no Central Excise Duty was payable on the same. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the civil appeal filed by the Revenue in [2011 (274) ELT A 16 (SC)]. In another case of appellants Priyanka Refineries Pvt Ltd., Unit-II Vs CCE, Hyderabad - II [2019 (7) TMI 249 (CESTAT-Hyd)] and Appeal No. E/30153/2015 vide Final Order No. A/30331/2025 dated 01.09.2025, Hyderabad Tribunal decided the issue in the favour of the appellant. The instant appeal is squarely covered under the same issue. Therefore, appeals are liable to be allowed.
(4) Appeal No. E/30993 & 31130/2017
7. In view of the above, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (ANGAD PRASAD) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) jaya