TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed oil, soap stock and wax emerge as bye-products and are classified under chapter 15.22 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents cleared these bye-products on payment of duty till August 2006 and from September 2006 onwards stopped paying duty by classifying the said bye-products as waste generated during the course of manufacture of oil by claiming exemption under Notification No.89/95 dated 18.05.95. 3. Revenue Authorities issued show cause notices for the confirmation of duty for the period September 2006 to February 2007 on the clearances on such soap stock and wax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty imposed penalties and also saddled the respondents with interest liability. Aggrieved by such an order, the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only with the non-excisable goods, whereas the case cited and relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), deals both with excisable goods and non-excisable goods. b) Also, Commissioner (Appeals) reliance on the decision of Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad IV Commissionerate vide OIO NO.15/2006 is not correct. In a similar issue, in the case of M/s. Saraiwalla Agro Refineries Ltd., Hyderabad IV Commissionerate, the adjudicating authority vide OIO No.11/2007 dt. 11.6.2007 allowed the benefit of Notification No.89/95. However an appeal was filed by the Department against the said OIO and the same was contended and rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.19/2007 dt. 31.12.2007. However, the Departmental appeal against the said order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 13.05.2009 in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. Priyanka Refineries and other. We may reproduce the ratio of the said decision:- "7.1 As regards the first issue the reliance was placed by the learned JCDR on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of C.K. Gangadhran vs Commr of Income Tax, Cochin (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "merely because in some cases, the revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case, where there is just cause for doing so. Or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts". It may be seen from the above r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s own case, the lower authorities have consciously taken a decision not to file an appeal before appellate forum. If that be so, the decisions of the Apex Court as has been cited above will apply. We find that the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in C.K. Gangadharan's case (supra) could have been made applicable, but for the facts of these cases before us, which are totally different, as indicated herein above. 7.2 On merits we find that the soap stock is a product which arises/emerges during the manufacture of refined vegetable oil. The respondent had always contended before the lower authorities that the soap stock which emerges is not at all a bye-product but a waste product. It is the contention of the revenue that the s....