Exemption for composite oil mill and solvent extraction unit distinguished from refining-only precedent, supporting refund entitlement.

Notification No. 115/75-C.E. was treated as applicable to goods cleared by a composite oil mill and solvent extraction unit, with the analysis relying on earlier Tribunal decisions on similar facts. The factory's activities in crushing oilseeds and undertaking solvent extraction supported its character as an eligible industry, and the issue of an 'AB' licence from the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats was used as corroborative support. A precedent concerning a unit engaged only in refining raw oil was distinguished because the present unit itself carried out the crushing and extraction process, making the refund claim on duty paid under protest sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 115/75-C.E. dated 30-4-1975 for the goods cleared during February 2000 to December 2000, and consequently entitled to refund of duty paid under protest.

Analysis: The claim was examined in light of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal covering identical or similar facts, which had held that the exemption under the notification was available to goods produced by oil mill and solvent extraction industries. The respondent's factory was treated as a composite unit engaged in crushing oil seeds and solvent extraction, and the issuance of category 'AB' licence by the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats supported its character as such an industry. On that basis, the department's reliance on a decision concerning a unit engaged only in refining raw oil was found distinguishable, because the present respondent had itself undertaken the crushing and solvent extraction activity.

Conclusion: The respondent was held entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. and the refund claim was sustainable; the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---