2015 (10) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for the Appellant & Shri M.S. Negi, AR for the Respondent we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of refind soya oil. Apart from that they are also manufacturing tin containers falling under chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, with the aid of power, which are being used by them captively for the packing of refind soya oil. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to duty liability in respect of the said tin containers, which according to the appellant are exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 10/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. The said notification grants exemption to the excisable goods from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the condition that the said goods are consu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 6. It is seen that an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mihijam Vanaspati Ltd. - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 631 (T). It was held that the tin containers manufactured in the appellant's factory and used for packing of Vanaspati have to be regarded as having been consumed within the factory of manufacture and the benefit of the notification would be available. The said decision stands followed by the Tribunal in the case of Rama Phosphate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 2003 (152) E.L.T. 315 (Tribunal Delhi). However when the attention of the original Adjudicating Authority was drawn to the said decision of the Tribunal in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cture and it cannot be said that tin containers are used in the manufacture of soya oil and as such packing material cannot be said to have been consumed in the manufacture of the Final Product. 7. We do not appreciate the above reasoning of the Joint Commissioner. Admittedly the issue in the case of Mihijam Vanaspati Ltd., was identical to the issue before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal having declared the law in respect of the same very notification, the original authority was bound to follow the same, unless the said declaration of law stand set aside by any other higher forum. It was not open to the original adjudicating authority to take a different view by introducing his own interpretation and by taking support of o....