PRAKASH SOLVEX AND PRAKASH SOYA LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals on behalf of M/s Prakash Solvex and M/s Prakash Soya were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. In Appeal No. E/822/2005 (M/s Prakash Solvex), the appellant has been asked to pay duty of Rs. 11,19,682/ - and penalty of Rs. 20,000/ -. In Appeal No. E/828/2008 (M/s Prakash Soya Ltd.), the demand is for Rs. 9,00,968/ - as excise duty.

(2.) IT may be stated, at the outset, that in the case of M/s Prakash Solvex, the appellant does not dispute the demand to the extent of Rs. 42,427/ - as duty leviable on shortage of oil and Rs. 1,02,975/ - on clearance of refined edible oil without payment of duty, and likewise in the case of M/s Prakash Soya Ltd. the demand of Rs. 1,02,975/ - on clearances of refined edible oil is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the said amounts have already been paid by the appellants.

(3.) ON the main issue as to whether the duty is leviable on fatty acid and residues which are by -products of oil, the appellants place reliance on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of A.P. Solvex Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana 2005 (192) ELT 292 (T -Del.). it is relevant to mention here that the dispute in these appeals arises from the fact that the appellants besides being engaged in the activity of extraction of oil from oil seeds, also purchased crude oil and refined the crude oil obtained from the open market. The dispute arose as to whether the manufacture of oil as a result of refining of the crude oil comes within the ambit of the said Notification dated 30.04.1975. The plea of the Revenue is that crude oil was purchased from outside and there being no production of oil by extraction process from the oil seeds etc., the manufacturers were not entitled to the benefit of the said notification which exempts refined edible oil manufactured by the oil mill and solvent extraction industry. The plea of the Revenue was rejected in the case of A.P. Solvex Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana (supra) observing that no such condition had been imposed in the Notification that the entire extraction of raw rice bran oil (which was the subject input in that case), should be carried out in the factory by the manufacturer for claiming exemption from payment of duty on refined edible oil. The Tribunal in conclusion relied upon a decision of the Bangalore Bench in CCE v. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. , as well as a decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Sunder Steels Ltd. . In the latter case, it was observed by the Apex Court that the exemption notification cannot be interpreted by adding words to it. As the Notification does not prescribe any condition that 100% production of the product covered under the Notification should be within the factory of the assessee, the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied.