Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appearance:

Shri G.L.Rawal & Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M.S. Negi, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Date of Hearing/ Decision: 21.11.2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 54580-54583/2014_ PER: Archana Wadhwa:
All the four appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances.

2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri G.L.Rawal & Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the Appellant & Shri M.S. Negi, AR for the Respondent we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of refind soya oil. Apart from that they are also manufacturing tin containers falling under chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, with the aid of power, which are being used by them captively for the packing of refind soya oil.

3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to duty liability in respect of the said tin containers, which according to the appellant are exempted from payment of duty in terms of notification No. 10/96-CE dated 23/07/1996. The said notification grants exemption to the excisable goods from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the condition that the said goods are consumed within the factory of their production in the manufacture of goods specified in the table annexed to the said notification. Admittedly soya oil is classifiable under chapter heading 15 of Central Excise Tariff which is one of the specified items. In as much as tin containers manufactured by the appellant stand consumed within the factory for packing of the refind soya oil, the appellants have claimed the benefit of the said notification.

4. Revenue, being of the view that use of tin containers for packing of soya oils cannot be held consumption of goods in the manufacture of the specified goods and as such benefit of the notification would not be available, initiated proceedings against them for denial of the exemption. The notices issued to the appellant culminated into an order passed by the original Adjudicating Authority vide which he confirmed the demand on the tin containers, cleared by the appellant, without payment of duty but did not impose any penalty on the ground that the issue is of interpretation of the notification, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant.

The Tribunal while arriving at the decisions appears to have failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Apex Court in right earnest in both the above decisions inasmuch as in the former case the Apex Court held that any sort utilization would amount to consumption of the article, albeit that article retaining its identity even after use while in the later case the Court has held that the clause using the word consumption convey the idea of using up the goods. Both the decisions of the Apex Court are in relation to utilization of the articles in forming final products. The meaning of term use and using up are totally different. Accordingly, he observed that filling of oil in tin containers is undoubtedly not a process of manufacture and it cannot be said that tin containers are used in the manufacture of soya oil and as such packing material cannot be said to have been consumed in the manufacture of the Final Product.