Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Patanjali Foods Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs - Bengaluru ... on 23 January, 2026
C/20073-20074/2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 20074 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 389/2013-Cus. (B) dated
15.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),
Bangalore.)
M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd.
(Formerly known as M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries
Ltd.)
301, Mahakosh House, Appellant(s)
7/5 South Tukoganj,
Nath Mandir Road,
Indore - 452 001.
Madhya Pradesh
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs
C. R. Building, P.B. No.5400,
Respondent(s)
Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
WITH Customs Appeal No. 20073 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 399/2013-Cus. (B) dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.) M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd.
(Formerly known as M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) Appellant(s) 301, Mahakosh House, 7/5 South Tukoganj, Nath Mandir Road, Indore - 452 001.
Madhya Pradesh VERSUS The Commissioner of Customs C. R. Building, P.B. No.5400, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001. Respondent(s) Page 1 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 APPEARANCE:
Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri M. Sreekanth, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 20054 - 20055 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 16.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2026 PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI These 2 Appeals Nos. C/20073-20074/2014 have been filed by the appellant M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Pvt. Ltd (Presently known as M/s. Patanjali Foods Limited) against the impugned Order-in-appeal No.399/2013 dated 25.10.2013 and Order-in-Appeal No. 389/2013 dated 15.10.2013 respectively passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. The facts are that the appellant imported crude palm oil and claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2002 Cus. dated 01.03.2002 (Sl.No.30II(A) claiming the crude palm oil to be of edible grade. Since the eligibility of the Notification was in dispute and the imported goods had to be tested, the appellant requested for provisional assessment which was accepted by the Revenue. On finalization of the provisional assessments based on the test reports, the benefit of the Notification was denied and differential duty was demanded by the original authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant, hence these appeals.Page 2 of 17
C/20073-20074/2014
3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant had entered into a contract with the foreign supplier M/s. Avanti Industries Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for import of crude palm oil of edible grade in bulk and the supplier had supplied 9749.856 metric tons of crude palm oil of edible grade in bulk against different bills of lading all dated 06.02.2012. Appellant filed 7 bills of entry all dated 22.02.2012 seeking clearance of the subject goods for home consumption classifying the same under CTH 1511 1000 and declared the subject goods as crude palm oil of edible grade in bulk and claimed the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of the Notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002.
3.1. Referring to the above Notification, it is submitted that crude palm oil having acid value of 4 or more and total carotenoid (as beta carotene) in the range of 250 mg/kg to 2500 mg/kg was entitled to the benefit of 'Nil' rate of duty. It is stated that on arrival of the vessel, samples were drawn from the subject goods by the customs authorities and the port health officer; 14 samples were drawn by the Port Health Officer on 25.02.2012 and the same were sent for testing to Customs Food Laboratory, Mysore (CFL) and the said Lab had rendered its report dated 29.02.2012 whereby it was certified that Acid value of the subject goods was 9.1. It was also opined that the sample confirmed to the standard laid down for Crude Palm Oil under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011. Accordingly, the subject goods were released for refining and the same refined to the satisfaction of the Revenue authorities. However, further 8 samples were sent for testing to Customs Revenue Laboratory (CRL), Mangalore and 8 reports all dated 09.03.2012 were obtained wherein it was opined that the Acid value of the subject Page 3 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 goods was 10.3 - 10.4 and based on this report, it was alleged that the appellant was not entitled to duty exemption as per the aforesaid Notification. Appellant vide letter dated 17.03.2012 submitted that the samples from the subject goods were tested and report dated 29.02.2012 was rendered by CFL, Mysore which confirmed that the acid value of the subject goods is 9.1 and the same confirmed to the standard laid down for crude palm oil under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Regulation, 2011 and the said report having obtained at the instance of the Revenue is binding and the subsequent report of CRL Mangalore is liable to be rejected.
3.2. The Learned Counsel further vide letter dated 26.03.2012 submitted that if the Revenue was not satisfied with the original test report, they should have got retested, hence, the appellant requested the department to send the duplicate samples to CFL, Pune which was rejected by the Revenue but sent the samples to CRCL, New Delhi and CRCL, New Delhi vide its report dated 13.06.2012 opined that on testing acid value was found to be 11
- 11.4 based on which the provisional assessments were taken up for finalization. The appellant vide letter dated 07.07.2012 submitted that Revenue cannot proceed without a proper show- cause notice before finalizing the assessments; however, the Revenue took up the assessments by only providing a personal hearing to the appellant.
3.3. It is further submitted that in a similar set of facts in Appeal No. C/20073/2014, the Revenue had taken a contrary stand disregarding the report rendered by CRL, Mangalore which was in favour of the appellant and relied upon the report of CFL, Mysore which was against the appellant to confirm the demand Page 4 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 of duty. In view of the above, it is submitted that the none of the above orders can be sustained.
3.4. Further, he submitted that Notification No. 21/2002 - Cus dated 01.03.2002 as amended cannot be denied on the premise that the Acid value exceeds 10 as alleged by the Revenue, as there is no such stipulation prescribed in the said Notification. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/s. Gokul Refoils Solvents Pvt. Ltd versus Union of India: 2012 (278) ELT 433 (Calcutta), he submits that the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied. Also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cargill India Private Ltd. versus Union of India: 2013 (288) ELT 209 (Gujarat), which was appealed by the Revenue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue; thus, the issue had attained finality.
4. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in Appeal No. C/2074/2014, the appellant had imported crude palm oil and claiming the benefit of Notification No.21/2002 - Cus dated 01.03.2002, pending test reports, the assessments were done provisionally and on finalization, the benefit of the Notification was denied based on the test reports. Referring to the Notification, it is submitted that the conditions of the Notification had to be satisfied to avail the benefit of exemption.
4.1 He further submits that the samples were drawn from the said consignment by the Port Health Officer (PHO), Mangalore and sent to Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Mysore for ascertaining the Acid value and the total Carotenoid content. The Page 5 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 Director CFL had furnished the findings stating that the samples does not conform to the standards laid down for crude palm oil under the provisions of PFA Act, 1954. Further, referring to the CBEC Circular No.40/2001 - Cus dated 13.07.2011 which inter alia mentions that the maximum limit of the acid value for edible grade crude palm oil as 10 and further, reference was made to supplementary note 1 under Chapter 15 of the Customs Tariff to corroborate the same. Subsequently, the Original Authority finalized the assessments under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and demanded differential duty.
4.2. It is further submitted that based on the CBEC Circular and the CRCL report by Delhi, it is confirmed that the goods imported by the appellant do not satisfy the conditions laid down by the said Notification, hence, they were not eligible for the benefit of the Notification. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others: 2018 TIOL 302-SC-CUS-CB wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "in case of ambiguity in a charging provision, benefit must necessarily go in favor of assessee but the same is not true for an exemption notification. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject / assesse and it must be interpreted in favor of the revenue".
4.3. Similar arguments have been put forth by the Revenue with regard to Appeal No. C/20073/2014 and it is submitted that based on the Board Circular and the test reports, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification; hence, the same is denied correctly.
Page 6 of 17C/20073-20074/2014
5. Heard both sides. In both these appeals, the issue is common that is the appellant has imported crude palm oil edible grade in bulk and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 as amended for the benefit of 'Nil' rate of duty. In both the cases, the assessments were provisional pending the test reports and based on the test reports, these assessments were finalized denying the benefit of the Notification. The dispute is whether the Revenue was correct in denying the benefit of Notification based on the test reports.
5.1. In Appeal No. C/20073/2014, we find that the appellant had filed 3 Bills of Entry, all dated 03.06.2011 importing 11999.180 metric tons of 'Crude Palm Oil' classifying the goods under CTH 1511 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002
- CUS (Sl.No.30(II)(A)) dated 01.03.2002. Since the appellant was unable to make self-assessment based on the available documents, the goods were provisionally assessed based on a PD Bond executed by the appellant pending receipt of the test reports and submission of original documents. Later, the appellant sought for finalization of the provisional assessments vide letter dated 31.08.2011. From the records, we find that the samples were drawn from the said consignment by the Port Health Officer (PHO) and as per the test reports received from the Port Health Officer (PHO), NMPT, Panambur vide letter No.MED/S&PH/FA/2011 dated 13.06.2011, it is stated that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for Crude Palm Oil under the provisions of PFA Act 1954 & Rules thereof in that:
a. Acid value exceeds the maximum standard limit and b. Test for rancidity is positive.Page 7 of 17
C/20073-20074/2014 The report is placed below:-
5.2 The CFTRI, Mysore report also reported that Acid value was 10.7 and opined that samples does not conform to the standards laid down for Crude Palm Oil under the provisions of PFA Act 1954 & Rules thereof. The appellant vide letter 14.06.2011 submitted that they are not satisfied in the analysis done by CFTRI, Mysore but withdrew the same vide letter dated 28.06.2011, since the Commissioner of Customs (A), Mangalore considered their request for reprocessing the imported goods. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order (Order No. 399/2013), referring to the above reports and ignoring the report dated 29.06.2011 from CRL, Mangalore held that the palm oil imported by the appellant does not conform to edible grade and referring to the Board Circular No. 40/2001 dated 13.07.2001 upheld the finalization of the provisional assessment for denying the benefit of Notification. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Page 8 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 Court was also ignored as appeals against them were pending in the Supreme Court.
5.3. In Appeal No. C/20074/2014, the appellant imported 9749.856 metric tons of Crude Palm Oil vide 7 bills of entry all dated 22.02.2012. Samples were drawn for testing under the provisions PFA Act and same was tested in Customs Laboratory, Mangalore. As per the test report, the samples were to contain Acid value of more than 10 and the duplicate samples sent to CRCL, New Delhi on 25.04.2012 also confirmed the above test report and accordingly, based on the Mangalore test reports assessment were finalized denying the benefit of the Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002.
5.4. In the first place, we need to examine the Notification which is reproduced below:-
Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 Effective rates of basic and additional duty for specified goods falling under chapters 1 to 99 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 17/2001-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2001 [G.S.R. 116(E), dated the 1st March, 2001], the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) of the said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, as the case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading or sub-heading of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India,-
(a) from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table;
(b) from so much of the additional duty leviable thereon under sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, Page 9 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 subject to any of the conditions, specified in the Annexure to this notification, the condition No. of which is mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (6) of the said Table :
Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to -
(a) the goods specified against serial Nos. 239, 240, 241 and 242 of the said Table on or after the 1st day of April, 2003;
(b) the goods specified against serial Nos. 250, 251, 252 and 415 of the said Table on or after the 1st day of March, 2005.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, the rate specified in column (4) or column (5) is ad valorem rate, unless otherwise specified.
Notification No. 91/2007-Cus., dated 2-8-2007 Oils -- Animal or vegetable oils -- Effective rate of duty -- Amendment to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2002 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 118(E), dated the 1st March, 2002, namely :-
In the said notification, in the Table, -
(i) for S. No. 30 and the entries relating thereto, the following S.No. and entries shall be substituted, namely :-
Sl. Chapter Description of Standard Additional Condi-
No. Heading goods rate duty rate tion
No. or No.
sub-
heading
No.
1 2 3 4 5 6
I. The following
goods, other than
of edible grade,
30 15 namely :-
(A) Crude palm
stearin having Free
Fatty Acid (FFA) 20 10% - 5
percent or more
and falling under
heading 1511,
imported for
manufacture of
soaps, fatty acids
and fatty alcohols
Page 10 of 17
C/20073-20074/2014
by a manufacturer
having plant for
splitting up of such
oils into fatty acids
and glycerols -----
II. The following
goods, of edible
grade namely, -
(A) Crude palm
oil falling under
heading 1511,
having an acid
value of 4 or
more and total 45% - 5
carotenoid (as
beta carotene) in
the range of 250
mg/kg.
(Emphasis supplied)
Condition 5: If the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
5.5. As seen from the relevant Notification under Sl. No. 30(II)(A), the benefit of 45% is available to Crude Palm Oil having an Acid value of 4 or more. The dispute being only of Acid value, since the Notification does not specify the upper limit, the denial of the benefit of the Notification stating that the Acid value was 10.7 cannot be justified. Therefore, as rightly claimed by the appellant the higher limit cannot be read into the Notification. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the Circular No. 40/2001 dated 13.07.2001 is also misplaced since the circular deals with clearance of vegetable oils imported for industrial purposes at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 while interpreting the Notification at Sl. No. 34 as reproduced below:-
34. 1511.10 Crude palm oil and 75% its fractions, of edible grade, in loose or bulk form Page 11 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 5.6. The Notification No. 21/2002 as amended allows the benefit of exemption if the Acid value is '4 or more' where the upper limit is not defined. In similar set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2013 (288) ELT 209 (Guj.) in identical set of facts held as follows:-
"8. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this application is whether the Revenue was justified in refusing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21, dated 1st March 2002, Sl. No. 30 as amended simply because on chemical analysis of the sample drawn from the consignment it was observed that the acid value was about 10%.
9. After going through Sl. No. 30 of the above notification as quoted above, we find that crude palm oil falling under Heading 1511 having Acid Value of 4 and above and the total carotenoid (as beta carotene) in the range of 250 mg/kg. to 2500 mg/kg in loose or bulk form for manufacture of refined oil, refined palmolein, vanaspati, bakery shortening or inter-esterified fats are totally exempted on condition No. 5.
10. There is no dispute that the consignments in question contain total carotenoid (as beta carotene) in the range of 250 mg/kg. to 2500 mg/kg but the only reason for not granting exemption is that the acid value is above 10, notwithstanding the fact that in the said notification exemption is available even in cases of crude palm oil falling under Heading 1511 having an acid value of 4 and more. According to the Revenue, as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, palm oil containing acid value of 10 or more is not fit as edible, the consignment in question having acid value of more than 10, cannot be termed as edible.
11. In our opinion, for the purpose of construing an exemption notification, what is indicated in the notification should be strictly followed. In the exemption notification, under Serial No. 30, three specific items have been described as goods of edible grade under three different clauses viz. (A), (B) and (C). All those three goods fall under the Heading Page 12 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 1511 notwithstanding the fact that the heading 1511 contains no item of edible grade unlike Headings 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517 and 1518 of Chapter 15. Thus, the supplementary notes attached to Chapter 15 defining the edible grade applies only to those headings under the said Chapter where the phrase "edible grades" find place. The exemption notification, on the other hand, in spite of the fact that the Heading 1511 contains no item of edible grade, specifically recognizes three items of Heading 1511 as "edible grade" for the purpose of giving exemption only.
12. In the notification in question, crude palm oil falling under Heading 1511 having an acid value of 4 or more is fully exempted provided the total carotenoid (as beta carotene) is in the range of 250 mg/kg. to 2500 mg/kg. The aforesaid item has been described as edible grade only for the purpose of exemption by specifically declaring that "the following goods of edible grade, namely, (A), (B) and (C)" would be fully exempted by giving specific description of those three categories.
13. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the learned advocate for the Revenue that we should read the notification as acid value of 4 or more but not more than 10 instead of 4 or more as indicated in the exemption notification by taking aid of the schedule of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules because in our opinion, help of supplementary notes under Chapter 15 cannot be taken when Heading 1511 under Chapter 15 does not contain any goods of edible grade.
14. It is not a case where the petitioner has falsely declared the goods as refined vegetable oil and consequently, a food within the meaning of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and was ultimately found to be unfit as a food. On the face of the declaration that the same was crude palm oil (edible grade) which falls under part (II) of Serial No. 30 of the exemption notification, it cannot be legitimately contended that such item became prohibited goods within the meaning of the Customs Act.
15. Even if we look at the definition of 'food' contained in Section 3(j) of the Act of 2006, the declaration in the Bill of Entry did not claim it to be a Page 13 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 'food' within the meaning of the said Act. Therefore, unless the item is intended to be used for immediate human consumption, the same, at any rate, cannot come within the definition of 'food'. No material has been placed before us indicating the intention of the applicants was to use the imported item in that very form for human consumption. The Revenue in the affidavit has also made it plain that it is not branding the consignment as prohibited goods.
16. Once we find that the description of the goods has been given as crude palm oil falling under Heading 1511 having an acid value of 4 or more, and at the same time the total carotenoid (as beta carotene) in the range of 250 mg/kg. to 2500 mg/kg, the petitioners are entitled to benefit of full exemption on Condition No. 5. The declaration of "crude palm oil (edible grade)" given by the petitioner is in conformity with the Serial No. 30 of exemption notification and thus, no fault can be found from such declaration given by the petitioner.
17. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it appears that pursuant to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Gokul Refoils & Solvents Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Customs authorities itself have found that the consignment in question having more than 10 acid value is fully exempted from duty. It appears that the Committee of Commissioners has decided not to challenge the said order. Such being the position, there is no justification on the part of the Revenue to take a different view in the consignment involved in these writ-applications.
18. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat v Reliance Petroleum Limited reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), interpretation of an exemption notification depends upon the nature and extent thereof, and the terminologies used in notification have an important role to play. According to the said decision where exemption notification ex facie applies, there is no reason as to why purport thereof would be limited by giving a different construction.Page 14 of 17
C/20073-20074/2014 Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that under the notification, as the limit of acid value has been given as 4 and above, there is no reason to construe the notification by taking aid of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which has no application to the facts of the present case when the petitioners intended to import the same not as a 'food' but as crude palm oil (edible grade) as pointed out in the exemption notification".
24. We, therefore, hold that crude palm oil imported, which falls within Serial No. 1511 having acid value of more than 4, is entitled to get benefit of exemption of duty, and such exemption cannot be taken away by adding to the words in the notification as "between 4 and 10".
5.7. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat had categorically held that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 (394) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) dated 13.08.2025 and the same is reproduced below:-
"2. After hearing Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant(s) and Mr. V Lakshmikumaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent(s), and after considering the relevant provisions of The Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the exemption notification and also the relevant provisions of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, we are of the opinion that the interpretation of the High Court is correct. In this view of the matter, the civil appeals stand dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of".
5.8. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble apex court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Versus Dilip Kumar & Company Page 15 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) dated 30-7-2018 also does not come to the rescue of the Revenue in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the exemption Notification to be interpreted strictly and only in the cases of ambiguity, it favours the Revenue. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below:
"52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under -
(1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification.
(2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue.
(3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled."
In view of the above, in the instant case there is no ambiguity in the Notification wherein it clearly mentions that Acid Value "4 or more", there being no upper limit, the same cannot be inserted into the Notification. Moreover, we also find that the Original Authority while finalizing the provisional assessments vide order dated 25.04.2013 has observed as follows at Para 6:-
6. "Accordingly, as per the request of the importers, the Commissioner has permitted them for reprocessing of the imported cargo in their factory premises subject to the conditions that due care and precaution be taken from both sides i.e., Customs and Central Excise to ensure that the same goods imported undergo reprocessing. Subsequently, the reprocessed cargo has been cleared after following the Central Excise Page 16 of 17 C/20073-20074/2014 rules and the cargo has been given out of charge after getting PHO clearance on the reprocessed cargo".
5.9. Since the imported goods have been reprocessed to make them edible and cleared after getting PHO clearance, denial of the benefit of the Notification that they do not meet the standards is nullified. Thus, considering the fact that the said Notification does not specify any upper limit, accordingly, there is no justification in denying the benefit of Notification on the ground that the Acid value is more than 10 especially when the goods were allowed to be reprocessed and cleared in some of the imports. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 23.01.2026.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 17 of 17