2018 (1) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, emphasizes standards for duty exemptions.

Shri Om Oils India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Kanpur

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential benefits. The decision emphasized the ... Benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 as amended - upgraded Mahua Oil - Whether exemption under N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 is admissible to the appellant or not? - validity of SCN. Held that: - the revenue has ignored the directions of its commissioner. There is not a single test report on record brought by the revenue so as to certify that the finished product of the appellant is Refind Edible Oil - under the facts and circumstances we find that the Show Cause Notice is only presumptive and accordingly, we hold that the same is not maintainable. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:Whether exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 is admissible to the appellant or not.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts:The appellant, a manufacturer of Refind Mahua Oil and Refind Rice Bran Oil, cleared upgraded Mahua Oil at NIL rate of duty under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing disallowance of the exemption, confirming demands, and imposing penalties. The appellant contended that no condition was imposed for availing the exemption and that the adjudicating authority went beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice.2. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals):The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, concurring with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.3. Appeal Before the Tribunal:The appellant appealed before the Tribunal, with a common Order-in-Appeal for all three appeals due to the same issue. The appellant failed to appear, and a time petition was rejected. The Tribunal heard the learned AR for the revenue and perused records.4. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal considered a clarificatory letter from the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur, which stated that Upgraded Rice Bran Oil did not conform to the standards of Refind Edible Oil and thus qualified for exemption under the notification. The Tribunal noted the absence of test reports certifying the product as Refind Edible Oil and found the Show Cause Notice to be presumptive and not maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential benefits.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of meeting specific standards to qualify for exemption under the relevant notification. The decision highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence and adherence to prescribed regulations in determining the eligibility for duty exemptions.