2017 (6) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 26.09.2002 4/2001 to 3/2002 6,50,099 39 & 40/2005 dated 22.03.05 E/458/2005 579/2001 dated 07.11.2011 31/2002 dated 31.05.2002 10/2000 to 3/2001 3,33,285 -do- E/569/2005 344/2003 dated 09.05.2003 22 & 23/2004 dated 27.10.2004 4/2002 to 2/2003 14,54,538 45/2005 dated 28.03.05     5/2004 dated 16.03.2004 3/2003 to 12/2003         TOTAL  10/2000 to 12/2003 24,37,922   2. The respondent is a petroleum refinery who was earlier known as Madras Refinery Ltd. (MRL). In the refinery, various petroleum products such as motor spirit, High Speed Diesel, Aviation Turbine Fuel, Superior Kerosene Oil etc. are manufactured out of crude. The present dispute pertains to the period October 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eyond a certain percentage, excess Sulphur was extracted. The fuel oil was used for generation of steam and also in the manufacturing process and not to manufacture Sulphur; Extraction of Sulphur was only incidental to manufacture of petroleum products; therefore, CESTAT held that excise duty was not to be demanded on any quantity of fuel oil on the ground that it was used in the manufacture of Sulphur. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision of Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeals mainly on the following grounds : a) The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to observe that the legal provisions which prevailed during the period of the present appeals were different from those prevailed during the period involved in the Tribunal&#39....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.01.2005. Therefore, the issue has not attained finality. d) Since July, 2001, Central Excise Rules, 2001 have come into force. Therefore, the decision rendered based on Central Excise Rules, 1994 is not applicable for the period from July, 2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in relying on the decision of the Tribunal which was rendered based on the erstwhile rules. 5. With the above background, we heard Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Ld.D.R. and Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Ld. Advocate. 6. Ld.D.R explained the various case law and submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon CESTAT Final Order No.63 to 67/2005 dt. 11.01.2005. However, the legal provisions prevailing during the period of the present appeals were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e manufacture of by product viz. Sulphur. 8. The dispute is with reference to the quantity of RFO captively consumed attributable to the sulphur cleared by the respondents without payment of duty. It is the stand of the Revenue that the benefit of captive consumption under Notification 67/95 dt. 16.03.1995 will not be available to this quantity of RFO since sulphur is finished product which is cleared without payment of duty. It is the stand of the respondent that such benefit will be available inasmuch as the RFO has been captively consumed in the manufacture of various petroleum products and sulphur has emerged as a by-product in the process of manufacture of petroleum products. RFO is used to generate steam which is partly used in the g....