TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plications filed by the appellants and maintaining the order dated 1st October, 2012, passed on the Applications, filed under Section 35 of the Act. Appeal No. 224 of 2013 is being filed by the appellant, M/S Ifp Petro Products Private Limited and the Appeal No. 225 of 2013 is being filed by Sri Anant Bhargava, the Director of the Company. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Appeals are that the appellant no.1 is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'), engaged in the activity of procuring lubricant oil in bulk from M/s Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL) and repacking the same in the containers and returning the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 was issued to the Company for a demand of duty to the tune of Rs.1,92,02,127/=, in respect of the clearance of the lube oil etc. during the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 (October 2010), alongwith the interest thereon and also for imposition of penalty on the Company as well as on Sri Anant Bhargava, Director of the Company. Subsequently, another show cause notice , dated 29th November, 2011 was issued for the subsequent period from 1st November, 2010 to 31st August, 2011, raising a demand of duty to the tune of Rs.62,80,045/=, alongwith the interest thereon and also for imposition of the penalty on the Company as well as on its Director. The Company as well as the Director of the Company filed the replies to the show cause notice. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal, the Company filed Central Excise Appeal No. 801 of 2012 before this Court. It is relevant to mention here that no appeal has been filed by the appellant no.2. At the time of the hearing of the aforesaid Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the other manufacturers, who are involved in similar activities are not subjected to levy of excise duty and said aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. On the aforesaid argument, this Court dismissed the Appeal with the observations that "From the impugned order, we find that it does not appear that this plea was taken before the Tribunal as there is no observation on this point. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Unionof India, reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T. 401. He submitted that in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE, Kanpur, reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T., 166, similar activity has been held to be not amounting to manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Act and the appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Tribunal has been rejected by the Apex Court in the case of Collector v. Mineral Oil Corporation, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 248 (SC). The view of the Tribunal in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation (supra) has been followed by the Chennai Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chenai I v. Metropolitan Transport Company, reported in 2008 (224) ELT 603 and following the two aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, the Bench of the Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513, while considering Section 35-F of the Act, has held that undue hardship is a matter within the special knowledge of the manufacturer for waiver and has to be established by him. The Apex Court further held that the word "undue" adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant. This view of the Apex Court has been subsequently followed by another Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ketan v. Parekh, reported in AIR 2012 SC 683. We have considered rival submissions. It is a settled principle of law that it is upon the appellants to establish the case of undue hardship for wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of CCE, Chennai-I v. Metro Transport Company (supra) and Mineral Oil Corporation v. Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur (supra) have been followed. Perusal of the decisions in the case of CCE, Chennai-I v. Metro Transport Company (supra) and Mineral Oil Corporation v. Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur (supra), reveal that Note 4 of Chapter 27 has not been considered. Though the appellants have filed list of 257 units and claimed that such units are not subjected to levy of duty on the oil obtained by the processing, which is being adopted by the appellant-Company, but such claim of the appellant is not substantiated by any document. No order has been annexed to substantiate the claim and, therefore, in the absence of any material to ....