TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. It is a general exemption Notification and the item with which we are concerned is at Serial No. 196, which reads as under: S. No. Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Rate under the first schedule Rate under the second schedule Condition No. 196 84 - any Goods specified in or intended to Chapter be used for the cold storage, cold room or refrigerated vehicle, for the preservation, storage or transport of agricultural produce. Nil 4 & 5 8 other list As is clear from the aforesaid Notification, the goods that are exempted from payment of excise duty are agricultural produce which are used for purposes specified therein. In this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Act, 1972 and classify the impugned goods as marine produce rather than as agriculture produce. In view of the above discussion, the department's action in demanding duty is just and proper and sustainable under the law. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the Central Excise duty and interest, under Section 11A and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 respectively, as proposed in the show cause notice dated 17.11.2003. Hence, I pass this order:- ORDER I hereby confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,01,670/- demanded in the show cause notice under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. I also order for recovery of interest on the demand confirmed as above, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 194....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the exemption is confined only to 'agricultural produce'. On that basis, it is submitted that the Tribunal in para 6 of the impugned order has wrongly recorded that both the Notifications viz. Notification No. 19/99 and Notification No. 6/02 are identically worded. It is submitted that this would answer the other reasons given by the Tribunal as well inasmuch as the acceptance of the earlier decision which was predicated on Notification No. 19/99 could not come in the way of the Revenue when the position had materially changed after supersession of the earlier Notification with present Notification No. 6/02. We find substance in the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Sanghi. We have compared the two Notifications. Mr. Sanghi is absolute....