TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal. 2. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra and an identical issue had come up before the Kolkata Bench in the case of Kalyani Solvent Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata [Final Order No.76036/2025 dated 30.04.2025 in Customs Appeal No.75372 of 2020]. The Kolkata Bench has allowed the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The Ld.Counsel submits that the issue is identical and prays that the present Appeal may be allowed as per the ratio laid down in this case law. 3. The Ld.AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the acid content was more than 30% because of which the oil cannot be treated as edible oil. He prays that the Appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. After going through the facts of the case, we find that the facts of the present case are identical to that of cited case law of Kalyani Solvent Pvt.Ltd., cited supra, wherein this Bench has held as under:- 6.3. In the impugned order it has been held that the acid content of the crude oil imported is above 20% in most of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grade, in loose or bulk form' are liable to concessional duty of customs @ 20% ad valorem. Prior to 1-3-1997 these oils were liable to concessional duty in terms of Notification No. 8/95-Cus., dated 2-3-1995, and Sr. No. 7 to Notifications No. 36/96-Cus., dated 23 7-1996. 2. A doubt has arisen regarding scope of the term 'Vegetable oils of edible grade' appearing in the said notification i.e. as to whether this term will cover only those vegetable oils which are fit for human consumption as it is imported or it will also include the vegetable oils which are not fit for human consumption at the time of import but will be fit for human consumption after further processing. 3. The matter has since been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Food, Department of Food, Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumers Affairs and Public Distribution and Department of Economic Affairs. It is clarified that the term 'vegetable oils of edible grade' will cover vegetable oils which are fit for human consumption at the time of import as also the vegetable oils which are fit for human consumption after further processing. The ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limit of the acid value for crude palm oil as 10.0. 3. Considering this definition one of the food and drugs laboratory after taking samples from a consignment of the imported crude palm oil - which showed acid values varying from 13% to 18%, has opined that the samples do not conform to the standards of edible grade palm oil prescribed under PFA rules and is not edible as such. In another case, a chemical examiner relying upon the Board's 1997 Circular, even though the sample had acid values of more than 13%, took the view that it may be considered as edible oil as after processing it could be made fit for human consumption. The discussions with the officers of Department of Food and a critical look at the Board's Circular of 1997 reveals that when the question of extending concessional rate for edible oils was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Food in 1997, for granting concessional rate for edible oils, it is the end use which was finally stressed. The definition of edible oil in "Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977" also is worth noting in this regard and it says edible oil means any oil used directly or after processi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.7. Thus, we observe that as per the clarifications issued by the Board, the crude oil imported by the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notification No. 42/2008-Cus. dated 01.03.2008 and Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012, if it is used for edible purpose after refining. Since there is no dispute in this case that after refining the goods imported by the appellant were used for edible purposes, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the exemption as provided under Serial No.33A of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended. Accordingly, we hold that the denial of exemption to the appellant in the impugned order is legally not sustainable and hence the demand of customs duty confirmed in the impugned order is also not sustainable. 6.8. We observe that this view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of 3F industries Limited versus Commissioner of Customs reported in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal - Bangalore). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced below: "3. The learned authorized representative on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umption." Taking note of the regulations and also taking note of the fact that appellants are expected to refine the oil and thereafter only release the oil into the market and therefore at the stage of import, the oil cannot be considered as a non-edible crude, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that exemption benefit under Notification No. 21/2002 has to be allowed. The present notification is a successor notification of the earlier notification and the conditions remain the same. At this stage the learned AR submits that the fact that it has to be refined and thereafter only it should be released and after refining itself would show that at the time of importation, the oil is not of edible crude and therefore does not become eligible for exemption. We are unable to consider this submission in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat taking a view that exemption would be available under this heading. 4. In view of the above observations, we consider that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36 1 18 DO 378/Imp/12/11 C5 12.11 48.7 19 BO 379/1mp/12/11 07.12.11 30.3 20 01/1mp/12/12 01 01.12 36.9 21 DO 02/Imp/ 42/12 02.01 12 58.1 22 04/Imp/12/12 09.01.12 56.3 23 26/Imp/ 12/12 26.02 12 28.0 24 27/Imp/12/12 27.02 12 27.8 7.1. From the Test Report reproduced above, we observe that the report has categorically indicated that the goods imported by the appellant satisfies the Food Standard. The Ld. adjudicating authority has allowed the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended, after satisfying himself that the goods imported was of 'edible grade'. 7.2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submitted that the Test Reports received from CRCL in respect of 24 Bills of Entry have been tabulated in paragraph 10.6 of the impugned order which indicates that acid content of the crude oil imported were above 20% in most of the cases. We observe that even though the acid content above 20% has been mentioned in respect of 24 Bills of entry, there is no do....