TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on duty-free furnace oil for manufacturing process</h1> <h3>JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., VADODARA</h3> JAYANT AGRO ORGANICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., VADODARA - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 684 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 1/95-C.E. dated 4-1-1995 regarding duty-free clearance of furnace oil for a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).Analysis:The case involved a 100% EOU licensee availing benefits under Central Excise Notification No. 1/95-C.E. dated 4-1-1995 for procuring furnace oil without duty payment. A subsequent amendment raised questions about the duty-free clearance of furnace oil used by the EOU. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated between fuel and consumables, concluding that furnace oil used as fuel did not fall under the category of raw material or consumable as per the notification. The appellants challenged this interpretation, arguing that furnace oil was used as a consumable or raw material essential for their manufacturing process, not limited to textile units.The Tribunal analyzed the notification's amendments and provisions, emphasizing that the amendment did not affect the eligibility of furnace oil as a raw material or consumable under Entry Nos. 5 and 7. They noted that the use of furnace oil to generate steam for the manufacturing process qualified it as a consumable or raw material as per the notification. Reference was made to precedents highlighting that eligibility under different serial numbers in the same notification should not be restricted arbitrarily. The Tribunal stressed that the plain reading of the notification supported the appellants' claim, and any denial of benefits required substantial evidence disproving their eligibility under the relevant entries.Additionally, the Tribunal considered the appellants' reliance on board instructions and the broad interpretation of EOU notifications for export promotion. They rejected the demand on the appellants, noting their compliance with procedures and the distinction between manufacturers of furnace oil and users in the manufacturing process. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the confirmed demands, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the demands imposed on the appellants, emphasizing the eligibility of furnace oil as a consumable or raw material under the Central Excise Notification. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting notifications in a manner that aligns with the intended benefits for EOUs and export promotion objectives.
TaxTMI 