TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of vide this common order. 2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., U-140, M.I.D.C, Hingna Road, Nagpur (the respondents), having solvent extraction plant, having Central Excise Registration bearing No. AACCM1276BXM002 dated 5-5-2003, to procure the goods on concessional rate of duty under Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacturer of excisable goods) Rules 2001. The appellant have filed the rebate claims of Rs. 4,13,538/- and Rs. 2,81,042/- vide their letter dated, 7-6-2004, and 13-10-2004, respectively alongwith supporting documents. While submitting the grounds for the rebate claim the appellant stated that Hexane is required for use in the manufacturer of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case the appellant has exported the de-oiled cake i.e., D.O.C., which is by-product emerging during the extraction of the main product i.e., refined soyabean oil, Exportation of refind soyabean oil has not occurred in this case. (ii) Hexane which is claimed to have been used in the manufacturer of exported goods i.e., D.O.C., is also an intergrated manufacturing process used in the manufacturing of refined edible oil which is the main product and not exported at all and cleared for home consumption by the appellant; use of Hexane is in the manufacturing of refined edible oil extracted from soyabean as well as in the emerging by-product de-oiled cakes. The appellant has exported DOC only and not the refi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient proof to establish that the primary objective of the appellant is to obtain Soya de-oiled cake by solvent extraction process and export the same. In fact refined Soyabean oil is a down stream product obtained through subsequent process. Therefore, the claim of the appellant in so far as rebate of duty paid on Hexane as claimed is concerned is admissible under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. My above conclusion also find support from Hon'ble CESTAT Order 2005 (183) E.L.T. 277, in case of the very appellant in almost identical situation in as much against the export of soya bean de-oiled cake and the claim for the reason that the appellant did not f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) dated 26-6-2001, which is also not verified by the jurisdictional Dy./Asst. Commissioner. (v) That the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur has totally ignored the settled principles of law, that, the condition stipulates in the above said notification are very vital and substantive requirements for availing, the benefit of exemption provided by these Notification. (vi) That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in the case of Zenith Chemicals v. Govt. of India, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 533 (Del.), that if exemption provided for in the notification is subject to certain condition specified therein and unless the same are satisfied the exemption will not be available to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure to avail the opportunity provided by ready international market for the product and during the production of the deoiled cake the soyabean oil is extracted as by product. (iv) That the geniuses of ratio of the input output, which is claimed by the respondent is never contested by the applicant nor by the Ld. Adjudicating Commissioner which is already specified in Exim Policy. 5. The case was heard on 24-1-2006, and Shri R.V. Gomashe, Supdt., of Central Excise, Nagpur, appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the applicant Commissioner. He reiterated contents of their Revision Application. 6. Shri R.K. Sharma, Ld. Advocate appeared for personal hearing held on 24-1-2006, on behalf of the respondents and....