Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The fact of the present case is that respondent is engaged in the manufacture and exports of Refined Edible Oil in their solvent extraction plant. The respondent procuring duty free Hexane in terms of Notification No. 43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26-6-2001 read with Central Excise (Removal of goods at Concession rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods), Rules, 2001. The said Hexane is used in the manufacture of De-oiled Cake(DOC). While manufacturing DOC, soyabean oil is also generated. The case of the department is that Hexane was procured under Notification No. 43/2001-CE(NT) which is not only use for DOC but it is also used for manufacture of oil which is not exported. Accordingly the duty free benefit availed by the respondent is not correct, accordingly duty demand was confirmed. Aggrieved by the Original order, respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original, therefore the revenue is before us.

(a) Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India[1978(2)ELT J311(S.C.)]
(b) Zenith Chemicals Vs. Government of India [1994( 73) ELT 533(Del)]
(c) Indian Aluminium Company Ltd Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991(55) ELT 454(S.C.)]
(d) Commissioner of C. Ex. New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt Ltd[2000(117) ELT 571(Tri. LB)] In view of the above judgments, he submits that condition of the notification should be scrupulously followed else benefit of the notification cannot be extended.

3. On the other hand, Shri. Akrit Jain, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that respondent is procuring Hexane on the basis of the permission granted following concessional duty rules, 2001. There is no dispute that hexane used for manufacture of DOC which is exported and oil which is generated is in the course of manufacture of DOC. He submits that the present issue is covered by the Tribunal judgments in their own case reported as CCE Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd [2007(214) ELT 307(Tri. Mumbai)].

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides.

5. We find that there is no dispute that Hexane indeed used for the manufacture of DOC. DOC and Hexane is provided in the import and export norms. During the manufacture of DOC, soyabeain oil generated unavoidable. The generation of the oil cannot be avoided for the manufacture of DOC. In this fact the Hexane which is procured duty free is used for manufacture of DOC. The notification No. 43/2001 read with concessional duty rules, 2001, the goods for use in manufacture of exports goods are allowed to be procured duty free. Therefore in our considered view, we do not find that there is any violation of notification or rules made thereunder. We further observed that in respondents own in case the issue has been decided in their favour which reproduced below:

The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. dated 26-6-2001 to Soya De Oil Cake exported by the respondents herein, as, according to the department, Soyabean oil which is an excisable commodity also arises in the manufacture of Soya De Oil Cake out of the imported Hexane and therefore, Soyabean Oil should also have been exported and since it is, not exported, the benefit under the exemption Notification is not available.