Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Indore vs M/S Vippy Industries Limited on 1 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Principal Bench, New Delhi
COURT NO. II
DATE OF HEARING : 01/08/13.
Excise Appeal No. 3847 of 2005 with Cross Application No. 100 of 2006
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/324/2005 dated 20/07/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore.]
CCE, Indore Appellant
Versus
M/s Vippy Industries Limited Respondent
Appearance
Mrs. Shweta Bector, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member
Final Order No. 57264/2013 Dated : 01/08/2013
ORDER
Per. D.N. Panda :-
Being aggrieved by order-in-appeal dated 06/10/2005 holding that there shall not be interest liability on the appellant for confusion of law till Finance Bill 2005 which defined taxability on the clearances made by the appellant for the period 17/12/2004 to 12/01/2005, Revenue came in appeal.
2. It appears from the facts of the case that the period under adjudication was 17/12/04 to 12/01/05 and duty on refined oil was discharged on 02/03/2005. Prior to March 1986, process of manufacture of refined oil adopted was not amounting to manufacture. Learned counsel for respondent relies on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) to submit that refined oil was not in tariff entry for levy of duty prior to March 1986. But as soon as Finance Bill, 2005 was introduced it paid duty on 02/03/2005 for which no interest may be demanded in respect clearances of 17/12/2004 to 12/01/2005.
3. In the cited case, through adoption of particular process of refining, vegetable oil was outcome. In para 24 of the judgment it is categorically held by Apex Court that a deeming provision shall not operate in absence of specific statement of law that a process amounts to manufacture. In para 25, it was held that in any event prior to 1986 before the term manufacture was amended, the refining process cannot be called as manufacture.
4. In the present case in Finance Bill, 2005 refining was specifically brought into the scope of Chapter 15 inserting the following Note under the said Chapter, which was to read as Note 5 as under :-
5. In relation to refined edible vegetable oils falling under Heading Nos. or headings 15.02 and 15.03, the process of refining, that is to say, any one or more of the processes, namely, treatment of crude oil with an alkali, bleaching and deodorisation, shall amount to manufacture. [Emphasis supplied].
In the bill it was stated that the said note shall be effective from 01/3/86 and ending 28/2/05.
5. Examination of the provision enacted by the 2005 Finance Bill shows that clearances of refined oil made by the appellant for the period 17/12/2004 to 12/01/2005 was dutiable which is claimed to have suffered duty on 02/03/2005. Till the position is made clear by Finance Bill, 2005, Assessees were not in a position to determine their liability.
6. Therefore let the dispute come to an end without levy of interest as has been held by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Our decision above is confined to the interest aspect only when duty element is not disputed.
7. In the result, Revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar) (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member Judicial Member
PK
??
??
??
??
3
EX/3847 of 2005