2017 (12) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Central Excise, Jai Andhar Vs. A.G. Fats Ltd [2012(277) ELT 96 (Tr. Del) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as [2014(300)ELT A74(SC)]. The facts in the case are identical, the appellant cleared the soapstock which generated during the refined edible oil and it was exempted from the payment of excise duty vide notification no.115/75-CEX dated 30-4-1975. The said exemption was withdrawn on 28-2-2006 and consequently duty was demanded on the said soapstock. The appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18-5-1995 however the same was denied by the lower authority. 3. Ld. A.R. relies in the impugned order. 4. I find that in identical circumstances the Tribunal in case of A.G. Fats....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oap stock arising in course of refining of oil is waste, no reasons have been given for arriving at this conclusion. In this order, the observations of the Tribunal that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works v. Union of India reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (S.C.) would cover the issue in favour of the respondent are also not correct as the issue involved in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works was as to whether the imported brass scrap in form of old and used articles of brass sold as scrap, would attract additional custom duty under Section 3 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, while the issue involved in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra) was as to....