2016 (7) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, Rajkot. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Refined Palm Oil (RPO), Refined Edible Oils, Vanaspati Products and Fatty Acid falling under Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985. The appellant had been availing benefit of area based exemption Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 on fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein. They have filed refund claims on 21.08.2007 amounting to Rs. 16,24,894/- for all their manufactured products. The original authority had sanctioned the claim for Rs. 15, 51,931/- but rejected Rs. 72,963/- on the ground that the product Acid Oil was not manufactured before 31.12.2005, hence, not eligible to the benefit of said exemption Notification. Aggrieved b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i.-Ahmd.)  (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot vs. Value Packaging 2009 (233) E.L.T. 84 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 5. He has further submitted that in the CBEC Circular dated 10.07.2008, it has been clarified that by using the same plant and machinery, installed prior to the cut off date, if any new product manufactured after cut off date, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the said new product. He has submitted that before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), they have adduced sufficient evidences including bills of material used for fabrication of machinery required for manufacture Acid Oil etc., to show that no new machineries were added after 31.12.2005, the cut off date. It is his contention that the Ld. Commissi....