|
2023-TIOL-338-CESTAT-AHM
N K Proteins Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is, whether Spent earth arising during manufacture of refined vegetable oil is manufactured goods and liable for excise duty; whether the same being residue/waste is eligible for exemption notfn 89/95- CE - Very same issue has been considered by Tribunal's Larger Bench in case of Ricela Health Foods Ltd 2018-TIOL-3625-CESTAT-DEL-LB and following the said larger bench judgment, Supreme Court also dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the view taken by Tribunal - In case of Shree Fats and Proteins Pvt Ltd, Tribunal has taken a view that recovered oil and tank sledge emerging during refining oil is not liable to central excise duty as the same is either covered under exemption Notfn 89/95- CE as waste product or not arising out of manufacturing process as in case of bottom sediments called tank sledge - Nature of process and also the goods i.e. spent earth is absolutely identical to goods in said decision - Division Bench of Tribunal in case of Divis Lab dealing with identical nature of goods held that waste obtained as by product during manufacturing process i.e. spent solvent is not excisable as products merely industrial waste and not goods of high purity - In same decision, it was further held that issue relating to dutiability of spent earth arising as residue in process of refining crude palm oil was considered in Jaimini edibles and facts India Pvt ltd and decided in assessee's favour - Similar view was taken by Principal bench of Tribunal in case of Arihant Solvent Pvt. Ltd that gad, sludge, acid oil and spent earth obtained in course of refining of vegetable oil is waste entitle for benefit of notfn 89/95- CE - Revenue has contended that as per amendment in section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 all the goods arising during manufacture is liable to duty - Even though Section 2 (d) was amended but definition of manufacture under section 2 (f) remains same before and after amendment in section 2 (d) - When based on process, it was found that process of generation of spent earth is not such which falls under definition of manufacture given in section 2 (f) the amendment of section 2 (d) will not have any effect - Therefore, revenue's contention on amendment of 2 (d) is not of any help to them - Spent earth generated in manufacture of refined oil is not liable for excise duty - Accordingly, impugned orders are not sustainable hence, the same are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-337-CESTAT-MAD
RRB Energy Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Issue that arises for analysis is, whether imported goods (Tubular Tower) are parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generator and eligible for benefit of exemption under Notfn 06/2006-CE - In case of Gemini Instratech Pvt. Ltd. 2013-TIOL-738-CESTAT-MUM , similar issue as to whether wind mill door are eligible for benefit of Notfn 6/2002/CE was considered and was decided in favour of assessee - The larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Rakhok Enterprises 2016-TIOL-1671-CESTAT-MUM-LB observed that issue having been settled by Apex Court as per judgment 2015-TIOL-322-SC-CX , anchor rings and load spreading plates which is specifically designed for purpose of attaching tower to the ground by providing necessary bolts are eligible for exemption under Notfn 6/2006 as these are parts of tower - The larger Bench also relied upon Circular 1008/5/2015 CX, which was issued clarifying that tower, nacelle, rotor, wind turbine controller are eligible for exemption - Following the decision of Apex Court, Tribunal opines that assessee is eligible for benefit of exemption as per the Notfn 6/2006-C.E. - Tribunal have not considered the issue of classification - Impugned order denying exemption and demanding differential duty is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-336-CESTAT-KOL
Deepak Agarwal Vs CST
ST - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order demanding service tax under "Rent-a-Cab" services - No investigation was conducted at the end of appellant - Only on the basis of information furnished by Public Vehicles Department, Kolkata and information collected from yellow pages, web sites and scrutiny of income tax records of appellants, demands have been raised, which is not sustainable in law as held by Tribunal in case of Luit Developers (P) Ltd. 2022-TIOL-180-CESTAT-KOL - Therefore, demand against appellant is not sustainable - Moreover, appellant has produced salary bills of drivers and a Certificate from Chartered Accountant to this effect certifying that appellant is engaged in plying metered taxies not rent a cab and appellant was operating the same through drivers himself - In that circumstances also, demands are not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
