Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/S Murli Agro Products Ltd on 15 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/125 & 126/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RK/188 to 189/NGP-II/2003 dated 9.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Appellant Vs. M/s Murli Agro Products Ltd. Shri Nandlal B Maloo Respondents Appearance: Shri B.P. Pereira JDR for Appellant Ms. Anjali Hirawat Advocate for Respondents CORAM: SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI MATHEW JOHN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 15.06.2011 Date of Decision: 15.06.2011 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2011 Per: Mathew John
The respondents are engaged in solvent extraction of edible oil from Soyabean. In their factory processes of crushing of seeds, solvent extraction of oil and refining of oil are carried out. They also refine crude soya oil procured from outside including imported soya oil. In the process of refining such crude oil, certain by-products like acid oil, soap stock, gum, deodorizer, soya sludge etc. emerges. They were clearing these by-products without payment of Central Excise duty by claiming the exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.4.1975. The said Notification reads as under: -
In exercise of the powers confereed by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods (other than rubberised coir mattresses, refined edible oil falling under heading No. 15.02, fixed vegetable oils of heading No. 15.03 and vegetable fats and oils of heading No. 15.04) falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), and manufactured in factories covered by any of the industries specified in the Schedule hereto annexed, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.
THE SCHEDULE
1. Coir Industry.
2. Cashew Industry.
3. Tanning Industry.
4. Oil Mill and Solvent Extraction Industry.
5. Rice Milling Industry.
2. A case was made out by Revenue is that when imported oil is refined, the exemption is not applicable because there is no extraction of oil involved in such refining.
3. Thus, the Revenue argued that the above exemption is applicable only if the full cycle of manufacture of edible oil including crushing, solvent extraction and refining is done in the factory. There is also a contention that the exemption is not applicable to the by-products because such products come from refining and not from oil milling and solvent extraction.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Notification does not specify the products to which exemption Notification is applicable. They contended that the exemption is applicable to all goods manufactured in factories covered by Oil Mill and Solvent Extraction Industry. Their factory is a factory of such type and, therefore, the exemption should be available to all the products manufactured in their factory. They relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal in this matter: -
(i) Synthite Industrial Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin 2002 (147) ELT 1071 (Tri-Bang)
(ii) Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin 1997 (91) ELT 538 (SC)
(iii) Prakash Sovex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2008 (229) ELT 565 (Tri-Del)
(iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi Vs. ITC Agro Tech Foods Ltd. 2006 (198) ELT 264 (Tri-Bang)
(v) A.P. Solvex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana 2005 (192) ELT 292 ()Tri-Del)
5. The learned DR, on the other hand, relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Rajadhiraj Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 1994 (69) ELT 148 (Tri) , wherein it was held that acid oil generated in the process of refining vegetable oil is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 115/75.
6. Considered the arguments on both sides.
7. We find that the matter is settled by different decisions quoted supra that when refining of imported oil is done in a composite factory having facilities for crushing of seeds and solvent extraction, the products emerging are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE. In particular, the decision in the case of A.P. Solvex Ltd. (supra) may be seen.
8. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Mathew John) Ashok Jindal)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Vks/
4