Appeal No.E/733/2008, (Arising of OIO No.2-4/CHD/2008 dt.23.1.2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) and Appeal No.E/2561/2007, (Arising of OIA No.217/CE/CHD/07 dt.28.6.2007 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh). Case: Ms.SRK Petrochemicals Ltd Vs CCE, Chandiarh. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No.E/733/2008, (Arising of OIO No.2-4/CHD/2008 dt.23.1.2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) and Appeal No.E/2561/2007, (Arising of OIA No.217/CE/CHD/07 dt.28.6.2007 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri S.C.Jain, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Atul Handa, AR |
| Judges | Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and bleMr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 3 |
| Judgement Date | May 15, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ashok Jindal, (Chandigarh Bench)
-
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
-
The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in the State of Himachal Pradesh Kala Amb. On 23.7.2008, the appellant filed declaration under Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003 for availing the exemption by way of substantial explanation under the said notification with effect from 1.8.2005. The said notification exempts certain goods from payment of duty. The product manufactured by the appellant falls under chapter heading which does not fall in the negative list as per Notification No.50/02 and exemption is available under the said notification and the goods namely industrial fuel oil fall under chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff and covered under S.No.10 of annexure to the Notification and the same is liable to pay duty and request for availing the exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE was rejected vide letter dated 16.3.2007. Therefore, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant for demanding duty on their clearances for the period 30.9.2005 to 31.12.2005, 31.3.2006 to 30.6.2006 and 30.09.2005 to 31.3.2007. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
-
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the sole ground for demand of duty is that the industrial fuel oil is not covered under the negative list of Notification No.50/03, therefore, the said clearances are subject to payment of duty. The defence taken by the appellant is that the appellant has mixed two type of oils - furnace oil and Mineralized Turpine oil (MTO) in the ratio of 90:10 or as per requirement of the customer. The blended oil is commercial known as industrial fuel oil. The blending process is done with the help of electric motor. No chemical reaction takes place in the process of blending. No new product emerges as a result of this blending. The properties and characteristics of industrial fuel oil and furnace oil are same. This blending activity is undertaken to improve the viscosity of the furnace oil. With improved viscosity, the said industrial fuel oil is more economical.
-
He further submits that even the tariff classification of the furnace oil and industrial fuel oil is same i.e. under heading 2710. He submits that the activity of blending/mixing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture under the central excise law. To support...
To continue reading
Request your trial