Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Bangalore Petroleum And Chem. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 28 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(119)ELT690(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran (Oral), Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 601/97 dated 29-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that the process of purification/refining of lubricating oil amounts to manufacture. Therefore, he continued to hold that its value should be adopted in respect of such goods processed on job work for the purpose of assessment and duty.
2. Appellants contend that the issue is covered in their favour in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Crescent Chemical Corporation as reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 458 wherein it has been held laid down that the process of purifying old and used lubricating oil would not amount to process of manufacture. It is also the grievance of the appellants that although the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted this in his order, yet chose not to apply the same and also not recorded in the operative portion of his order on its applicability. Further the appellants relied upon the judgment in the case of Kandivali Metal Works reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 187 with regard to valuation aspect which was also not commented upon or applied. The learned Counsel submits that the issue was further examined by the Tribunal in a large number of cases and it was again applied in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE as reported in 1999 (34) RLT 24 (CEGAT) and the Tribunal reiterated its earlier ratio that purification of the impure used transformer oil will not bring into existence of any new and distinct commodity and hence the process of such purification would not result in the process of manufacture and hence the same cannot be dutiable again. He submits that this judgment is comprehensive and has taken into consideration of 16 earlier judgments including that of the Apex Court as noted therein. He submits that the issue is covered in their favour and therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the appeal allowed on both the issues.
3. Shri S. Kannan, learned DR submits that the. judgments are distinguishable as new product has come into existence after purification. Used lubricating oil was a different commodity and after process of purification it has become marketable and usable. Therefore, being marketable commodity, it has to be considered as a new product.
4. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the cited judgments we are of the considered opinion that all the points raised in the appeal have been answered by the Tribunal in the noted judgments. It has been clearly held that on purification, lubricating oil retains its character and there is no change in the same to make a different commercial excisable commodity (CCE v. Crescent Chemical Corporation) supra. The Tribunal after detailed consideration of the judgment including the new tariff has reiterated its earlier ratio. In view of the several judgments cited therein the Tribunal held that such purification does not bring into existence any new commodity. In view of the well laid down ratio of the judgments in both the cases, they are required to be applied in the present case. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any as per law.