By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, DEC 23, 2013: THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the Miscellaneous Order passed by the Tribunal in No.41613/2013 dated 3.7.2013 - 2013-TIOL-1579-CESTAT-MAD . By the said order, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for modification of the earlier order dated 6.3.2013 ( 2013-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-MAD ), in and by which, the appellant/assessee was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore within a period of eight weeks.

The facts, which led to the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, are that the appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of crude oils like cotton seed, sunflower, rice bran, etc., and also manufacturing products like vanaspathi, bakery shortening, etc., which were exempted from excise duty. There are three products viz. Fatty Acid, Soap Stock and Spent Earth, which are resultant products of processing of the refining of crude oil. The question was whether excise duty is leviable on these products. The Revenue's contention was that on account of the rescinding of the Notification No.115/75-CE dated 1.3.2006, these products were leviable to central excise duty. The appellant continued to contend that they are eligible for exemption and they are also covered by the Exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE for Small Scale Units and also claiming the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 8.5.1995.

The Revenue resisted the contention raised by the appellant/assessee, by submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE VIZAG V. JOCIL LTD. - (2010-TIOL-116-SC-CUS) , has held that the Fatty Acid is an excisable product. The further reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decisions of the Tribunal . The Revenue further contended that the stay order granted by the Tribunal on 17.7.2012, in respect of another matter, was made without noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal.

The Counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that considering the conflicting views of the Tribunal, the assessee prays for reduction in deposit amount.

Taking note of the reasons stated by the Counsel for the assessee, and the decisions cited, the High Court found that interest of justice would be served and the interest of the revenue would also be protected by directing the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.75 ,00,000 /- within a period of six weeks as against the direction of the Tribunal to deposit Rs.1 crore. As regards the applicability of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, the same has to be thrashed out by the appellant/assessee only at the time of the final hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal.

(See 2013-TIOL-1067-HC-MAD-CX)