Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise

Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. vs Collr. of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 30, 1996

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9809

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/9809
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 30, 1996
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Collr. of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1996)(87)ELT752TriDel

Excerpt

.....of certain specified raw materials in certain percentages. the appellants were availing of partial exemption of excise duty on vegetable products in terms of notification no. 115/86 for increased use of cotton seed oil and rice bran oil in the manufacture thereof.during the period from 1-3-1986 to 15-9-1986, they did not pass on the benefit of the above notification to the buyers of vegetable products.in other words, they charged duty @ 10% adv. from their customers but they paid 10% minus the exemption permissible in terms of the notification. since the department was of the view that the difference between the amounts that they charged from customers as excise duty and the amount actually paid was part of the cum-duty price of the vegetable products and they should have paid duty thereon, two show cause notices proposing recovery of short levy of duty to the extent of rs. 20,69,711.14 were issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of rs. 18,82,465/-. hence this appeal.2. we have heard shri j.p. kaushik, learned counsel and shri a.k.agarwal, learned sdr.3. we find that this issue has been settled by the tribunal in the case of hindustan lever ltd. v. collector of central excise, bombay reported in 1994 (70) e.l.t. 745 in which the tribunal has followed its order no. 790-962/89-a, dated 6-12-1989 which has followed the board's circular dated 9-9-1987 in which the benefit has been extended to the assessees in such situations. the tribunal had held that, even though the board's order was not binding upon the tribunal, when the board wanted the collectors to take a particular view which was advantageous to the assessees, the assessees should get an opportunity to plead for the advantage. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of western india vegetable products v. j.r. kartikar (order dated .6-4-1990) in s.l.p.no. 4515/1977 civil appeal no. 1893/1974 also observed that in view of the circular above mentioned, the civil appeal and the slp are allowed.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessable value of vegetable products manufactured by the appellants herein should be revised upwards so as to include rebate which was granted on excise duty subject to conditions of Notification 115/86 which prescribed use of certain specified raw materials in certain percentages. The appellants were availing of partial exemption of excise duty on vegetable products in terms of Notification No. 115/86 for increased use of cotton seed oil and rice bran oil in the manufacture thereof.

During the period from 1-3-1986 to 15-9-1986, they did not pass on the benefit of the above Notification to the buyers of vegetable products.

In other words, they charged duty @ 10% adv. from their customers but they paid 10% minus the exemption permissible in terms of the Notification. Since the Department was of the view that the difference between the amounts that they charged from customers as excise duty and the amount actually paid was part of the cum-duty price of the vegetable products and they should have paid duty thereon, two show cause notices proposing recovery of short levy of duty to the extent of Rs. 20,69,711.14 were issued and the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 18,82,465/-. Hence this appeal.

2. We have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel and Shri A.K.Agarwal, learned SDR.3. We find that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 745 in which the Tribunal has followed its order No. 790-962/89-A, dated 6-12-1989 which has followed the Board's Circular dated 9-9-1987 in which the benefit has been extended to the assessees in such situations. The Tribunal had held that, even though the Board's order was not binding upon the Tribunal, when the Board wanted the Collectors to take a particular view which was advantageous to the assessees, the assessees should get an opportunity to plead for the advantage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Western India Vegetable Products v. J.R. Kartikar (order dated .6-4-1990) in S.L.P.No. 4515/1977 Civil Appeal No. 1893/1974 also observed that in view of the Circular above mentioned, the Civil Appeal and the SLP are allowed and the Supreme Court directed both the authorities to act in accordance with the conditions of the circular. Learned SDR has not been able to adduce any satisfactory argument to persuade us to take a different view which has already been expressed by the Tribunal.

Following the ratio of the order of the Tribunal (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief due to the appellants in accordance with the law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. vs Collr. of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition