2008 (11) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined edible oil in bulk and sold the same to one M/s. Dhara. Such clearances of edible oil in bulk was prior to 1-3-2003 and was attracting Nil rate of duty. However, with the introduction of Budget for the said year, the loose oil was made chargeable to duty @ 8% ad valorem, but simultaneously the exemption notification was issued. There is no dispute in respect of clearances of bulk and loose oil prior to and after 1-3-2003. 2. However, bulk and loose oil manufacturing for M/s. Dhara Vegetable Oil Ltd. was given by M/s. Dhara Vegetable Oil Ltd. to the appellant on job work basis for branding and packing same in retail pack preparing brand/lable of Dhara. Vide Finance Bill 2003, Chapter Note 4 was introduced to Chapter 15 vide Clause 14....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....form on the said date, they were not required to pay the duty in respect of the same. They relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CCE v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein the earlier decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.) was distinguished. 4. The authorities below did not accept the above stand of the appellant and rejected the refund claim. Such rejection by the original adjudicating authority was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 5. On going through the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the refund claim stand rejected on the ground that the refined edible oil, wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacturing activity w.e.f. 1-3-2003 on account of deeming fiction having been created with insertion of note 4 to Chapter 15. As such, no taxable event exists prior to 1-3-2003 and no duty was leviable in respect of goods completely manufactured before the said date, though lying in stock and cleared thereafter. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), has categorically held that clearance of the goods manufactured prior to levying of duty not being excisable goods, cannot be called upon to pay the duty at the time of clearance of the goods after the levy of duty. Similarly, in case of Shyam Oil Cake Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2....