Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
P.G. CHACKO, B.S.V. Murthy, JJ.
Ammireddy Oils Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam -Respondent
Misc. Order Nos. 25422 - 25423/2013 Application nos. E/Stay/1366/2011,E/63/2012 Appeal Nos. E/2098/2011,E/156/2012
Decided On : 20-03-2013
R. Dakshinamurthy,Ms. Sabrina Cano
P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - These applications filed by the appellant seek waiver and stay against the adjudged dues. The impugned demand of duty is on certain by-products viz. fatty acids, wax, and gum which were generated during the course of refining of crude rice bran oil during the material period. The demand ' arose out of denial of the benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 which granted exemption to wastes, parings and scrap. The question before the lower authorities was whether the aforesaid byproducts could be considered as waste. The decision on this question is against the appellant. Hence the impugned demands of duty. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that a representation dated 27-1-2012 submitted to the Central Board of Excise & Customs by the Solvent Extractors Association of India (of which the appellant is also a Member) for exemption from payment of duty on the aforesaid by-products on the basis of a practice which was claimed to be in existence in relation to assessment of such byproducts is under consideration of the Board and that a survey has been floated to determine whether any such practice was in vogue. We are told that the survey is ongoing. Before us, reference has also been made to an old Circular of the Board viz. No. 684/7/2002-CX., dated 26-12-2002 which stipulated that, whenever a survey was floated for issuing/examining Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, no coercive action should be taken for recovery of arrears/duties. In other words, the appellant is claiming the benefit of this Circular in view of the ongoing survey based on their representation dated 27-1-2012. After considering the submissions, we are inclined to grant waiver and stay as prayed for inasmuch as, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Board itself is against coercive recovery proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
