PUSHTI REFINERIES (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 214/2005 Central Excise dated 29.12.2005, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals -I), Bangalore.

(2.) THE appellants are engaged in the refining of edible oils. The investigation revealed that they cleared the refined oil and the by products arising during the manufacture without payment of duty. The Adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,66,220/ -being the duty involved for the period from April 2003 to February 2004 under proviso to Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The above amount is on account of the following:

(3.) SHRI Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. The learned Advocate fairly conceded that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M.P. Dyechem Industries v. CCE, Indore 2001 (136) ELT 579 (Tri. - Del.) is against the appellant. He said in the above decision, the benefit was not given for the reason that the appellant is merely refining solvent extract vegetable oils and neither crushing oilseeds to obtain oil nor undertaking any solvent extraction activity. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the Notification 115/75 -CE, in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin 1997 (191) ELT 538 (S.C.) has held that the products of Oil Mill Industry and Solvent Extraction Industry are independently and separately covered by the said exemption. Further he relied on the following decisions of the CESTAT: