TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to this question and the appeal are as follows. 1.2 M/s. Ennar Refineries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant or the company) is a manufacturer of Refined Edible Oil falling under Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to CETA, 1985. The process of manufacture involves the processes of saponification (removal of fatty acids), neutralization (treating with alkali), and deodorization (removal of bad odour) of the unrefined edible oil. In order to appreciate the contentious issue involved in this appeal it is necessary to trace the history of levy on the said goods. 1.3 Prior to June 2005, the said goods were ostensibly non-excisable as the process of refining the crude edible oil did not amount to manufacture ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to this product. It was under these circumstances, assuming that the levy was constitutional the company had assessed and paid duty on the said goods during 2003-04 and 2004-05 at applicable rates from time to time. The company had availed the benefit of small scale exemption for the year 2003-04 as the value of clearances of all excisable goods for the year 2002-03 according to the company had not exceeded Rs. 300 lakhs. 1.5 During January 2005 the department initiated certain investigations into the company's transactions and raised a demand for an amount of Rs. 12,12,940.00 on the allegations of irregular availment of SSI exemption and clandestine removal during the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The company conceded the liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In paragraph 3 the issue has been discussed and the same is reproduced below : "We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Section 11AB is the provision under which interest has been demanded in this case. Section 11AB clearly provides that interest is liable from the first date of month succeeding the month in which they duty ought to have been paid under this Act. Therefore, we agree with the learned advocate that duty is liable to be paid only after the period of 180 days are over from the date of issue of capital goods to the job worker. As regards penalty, we agree with the learned advocate that this is only a minor procedural omission and had happened because of mistake. Further, we also take note of the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being the position, it cannot be said that in 2003-04 and 2004-05 the differential duty ought to have been paid by the appellant. It became payable only when Note 5 came into existence. Therefore interest also will be liable to be paid only from the 1st day of the succeeding month and therefore I find that the contention of the appellant is in accordance with the statutory provision and also the precedent decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned counsel is applicable to the facts of this case. 3. Learned AR submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. [2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C)] is applicable to the facts of this case and therefore interest becomes payable from the date o....