Kanchan Oil Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court allowed the assessee’s appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and set aside the CESTAT order, the order-in-original, the excise duty demand, penalty and interest arising from denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 1st March, 2003. The dispute concerned Vanaspati manufactured by M/s. Kanchan Oil Industries Limited after 1st March, 2003. Revenue alleged that the assessee had cleared branded Vanaspati under the name “Shiva” and therefore fell within the exclusion from the notification applicable to partially or wholly hydrogenated vegetable fats and oils and Vanaspati bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale. The Commissioner had confirmed duty of Rs.37,80,246/- under Section 11A(1), imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC and charged interest at 15% under Section 11AB. CESTAT dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
The assessee contended before the High Court that the decisive condition under the exemption notification was whether a brand name was affixed to the goods put up in unit containers, rather than whether a brand name appeared on invoices. According to the assessee, no container, packing material, label, printing order or stationery showing use of the brand on the goods had been seized or examined. It relied on certificates from purchasers stating that the goods received by them did not carry the “Shiva” brand. Revenue argued that the assessee had manufactured branded goods before the levy was introduced and that customer enquiries showed that invoices mentioned the “Shiva” brand.
