M/S.VINAY SOLVENT EXTRACTION INDT. P.LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJARAT — C.A. No. 2523 - 2529/2000

Case under Section I-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010044662000

Filing Date

09-Mar-2000

Registration No

C.A. No. 2523 - 2529/2000

Diary Number

4466/2000

Order Date

20-Apr-2005

Document Type

Judgment - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section I-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S.VINAY SOLVENT EXTRACTION INDT. P.LTD

    Adv. V. BALACHANDRAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJARAT

    Adv. P. PARMESWARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2005

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 20-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 12-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 07-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 09-Mar-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2523 - 2529/2000

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: M/s Vinay Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Vinay Solvent Extraction Industries (the appellants) were not entitled to excise duty exemption under Notification No. 262/86-C.E. The Court found that as the actual manufacturers under an authorization agreement, the appellants could only claim exemption if they produced certificates from the Deputy Director of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats proving their oil was manufactured from solvent-extracted vegetable oils—which they failed to do, providing instead certificates naming Vijay Oil Mill. Key Reasoning: The appellants' own authorization declaration established them as manufacturers handling procedural formalities on job-work basis. They filed the classification list and claimed the exemption as manufacturers. The Court rejected their attempt to later argue Vijay Oil Mill was the real manufacturer, holding that a party cannot simultaneously claim exemption as manufacturer while disavowing manufacturing responsibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case