Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Roshan Lal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 3 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(103)ELT96(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. These are appeals filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 19-7-1991.
2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the process of refining of VNE Oils known as fixed vegetable oils falling under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 262/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986 which provides for total exemption on aforesaid oils manufactured from fixed vegetable oils extracted by solvent extraction method. One of the conditions of this notification is that the manufacturer is required to produce within such period as the Assistant Collector may allow, a certificate from the designated officer of the Directorate of Vanaspati that fixed vegetable oils have been manufactured from fixed vegetable oils extracted by solvent extraction method.
3. It was his submission that during the period January, 1988 to March, 1988, the appellants had cleared 156.615 M. tons solvent extracted rapeseed oil, 233.090 M. tons solvent extracted mustard oil and 36.750 M. tons of solvent extracted groundnut oil at nil rate of duty under the said notification. They were issued a show cause notice as to why duty amounting to Rs. 3,47,403.75 be not recovered from them for not fulfilling the conditions of Notification No. 262/86. In reply to the show cause notice, it was submitted that the appellants had applied for the certificate within time and they were doing their best efforts to get the required certificate. However, by the time of personal hearing, the appellants were able to get certificate in respect of the entire quantity of 156.615 M. tons of solvent imported rapeseed oil and 36.750 M. tons of solvent extracted groundnut oil. In addition, they had also been able to produce a certificate for 163.438 M. tons of mustard oil out of total applied for quantity of 233.090 M. tons. Further, a certificate for additional quantity of 48.860 M. tons was also included in the said (combined) certificate, which was shown as 'rapeseed oil'. The A.C. did not take into account certificate for 48.860 M. tons shown as rapeseed oil and confirmed the demand for Rs. 52,239/- for a quantity of 69.652 M. tons (i.e.48.860 + 20.792). For a quantity of 20.792 M. tons, no certificate was produced. The Assistant Collector did not allow extension of time by having regard to the helplessness of the appellants in procuring the certificate for the balance quantity of 20.792 M. tons. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal.
4. It was also his submission that as regards the certificate of 48.860 M. tons, the learned Collector (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the submissions made by the appellants while disposing of the appeal. Rather, this aspect has not been touched at all.
5. Learned DR stated that there is no denying the fact that as per requirement of the Notification No. 262/86, the appellants were required to produce the requisite certificate from the competent authority which they have failed to produce. The Assistant Collector vide his impugned order had accorded another opportunity to them for filing the requisite certificate which they have failed to do implying thereby that they were not in possession of the certificate. Production of certification is a requisite under the provisions of Notification No. 262/86 and since there was non-compliance of the same, the demands have been correctly raised against the appellants.
6. In reply, learned Counsel stated that the appellants have filed an application for the grant of certificate for the requisite quantity as per the procedure prescribed in the context of the notification. It was not within the power or control to compel the said authorities to issue a certificate on their asking.
7. Further, both the authorities below had erred in not extending the benefit of Notification No. 262/86 on rapeseed oil included in the quantity of mustard oil. The certificate issued by the Directorate of Vanaspati indicates quantities of processed fixed V.N.E. oils manufactured by refining rapeseed oil extracted by solvent extraction method and the benefit of the notification in respect of this quantity of rapeseed oil should have been granted.
8. However, the appellants are not pressing the orders of the lower authorities on the quantity for which they have produced no certificate at all. The same is as follows :
Appeal No. Period Quantity in Covered Quantity not
dispute under pressed
Rapeseed Oil
E/4290/91-C 1/1/88 to 69.652 MT 48.860 20.792
31/3/88
E/4291/91-C Oct. 87 to 102.105 MT 49.230 52.875
Dec. 87
9. He submitted that the appellants have no objection if duty demand pertaining to the quantity for which no certificate has been produced is confirmed.
10. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that botanically, both mustard and rape are different species of genus "brassica" (belonging to the family "brassicacae (crucifarae)", Mustard being 'B-Hirita' and 'B-Nigra' whereas Rape is 'B-Napus'). However, it appears that commercially, there is not much of a difference and the central excise provisions also take note of this position as evident from the fact that the Notification No. 114/86 (as amended by Notification Nos. 260/86 and 127/88) grants exemption to fixed vegetable oils of the description specified in Column (2) of the Table annexed thereto and the relevant entry reads as follows :-
"5. Mustard/Rapeseed oil Rs. 750 per tonne."
This shows that for the purpose of this notification, Mustard/Rapeseed Oil have to be treated as same commodity in the nature of a fixed vegetable oil for all practical purposes. Hence, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of that quantity of Mustard Oil/Rapeseed Oil regarding which they had produced the required certificates of Directorate of Vanaspati in terms of Notification No. 262/86 (amended). They are, however, not entitled to the benefit in respect of that quantity for which they have failed to produce the required certificate even at this stage (and the claim for which has not been pressed during the course of hearing). The impugned orders are, therefore, required to be modified and the appeals allowed for granting relief in terms of the above observations and findings in accordance with law, as already announced in the open Court.