2008 (1) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty of Rs. 20,000/-. In Appeal No. E/828/2008 (M/s. Prakash Soya Ltd.), the demand is for Rs. 9,00,968/- as excise duty. 2. It may be stated, at the outset, that in the case of M/s. Prakash Solvex, the appellant does not dispute the demand to the extent of Rs. 42,427/- as duty leviable on shortage of oil and Rs. 1,02,975/- on clearance of refined edible oil without payment of duty, and likewise in the case of M/s. Prakash Soya Ltd. the demand of Rs. 1,02,975/- on clearances of refined edible oil is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the said amounts have already been paid by the appellants. 3. The case of the appellants is that, they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 115/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce bran oil (which was the subject input in that case), should be carried out in the factory by the manufacturer for claiming exemption from payment of duty on refined edible oil. The Tribunal in conclusion relied upon a decision of the Bangalore Bench in CCE v. Aggarwal Industries Ltd., 2005 (186) E.L.T. 174 (T), as well as a decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Sunder Steels Ltd., 2005 (181) E.L.T. 154. In the latter case, it was observed by the Apex Court that the exemption notification cannot be interpreted by adding words to it. As the Notification does not prescribe any condition that 100% production of the product covered under the Notification should be within the factory of the assessee, the benefit of exempt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f extraction. In the instant case, it was pointed out that 97% of the manufacturing activities carried out in the case of M/s. Prakash Solvex and 99% in the case of M/s. Prakash Soya, involve purchase of crude oil from open market and only negligible quantity involves extraction from fatty acid etc. The appellants not being solvent extraction units, cannot claim the benefit of exemption under the said notification. 6. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned DR for the simple reason that what is exempted in the notification is the goods (other than especially mentioned therein) manufactured in factories covered by any of the industries specified in the schedule. It is to be kept in mind that the Notification refers to Oi....