Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Piyush Awasthi vs Cce,Delhi-I on 12 March, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No.III
E/Appeal No.577/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.21commr/RP/07-CE dated 13.8.07 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise,Rohtak )
Date of Hearing: 12.3.2012
For Approval and signature:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member
_________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
The order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of
the CESTAT (Procedure) rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the
Department Authorities?
Shri Piyush Awasthi Appellant
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.578/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.151/2005 dated 22.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I )
Shri B.S. Baberwal Appellant
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.619/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.150/2005 dated 14.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I )
Shri B.S. Baberwal Appellant
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.620/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.150/2005 dated 14.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I )
Shri R. Sridhar Appellant
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.621/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.150/2005 dated 14.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I )
Shri Piyush Awasthi Appellant
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.618/2006
(Arising out of order in original No.150/2005 dated 14.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I )
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Appellant
Corporation Ltd
Vs
CCE,Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.2988/2007, E/Appeal No. 1093/2008
(Arising out of order in original No.21/10/Comm/RP/07-CE dated 13.8.07/28.2.08 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak)
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Appellant
Corporation Ltd
Vs
CCE,Rohtak-I Respondent
E/Appeal No.1391/08
(Arising out of order in original No.9/2008 dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I)
M/s Indian Oil Corp Ltd Appellant
Vs
CCE, Delhi-I Respondent
E/Appeal No. 1838/2008
(Arising out of order in original No.5/Comm/RP/07-CE dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow)
M/s Bharat Petroleum Appellant
Corporation Ltd
Vs
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
E/Appeal No. 1839/2008
(Arising out of order in original No.6/Comm/LKO/CX -2008 dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow)
M/s Bharat Petroleum Appellant
Corporation Ltd
Vs
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
E/Appeal No. 2023/2008
(Arising out of order in original No.6/Comm/LKO/CX -2008 dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow)
M/s O.P. Gandhi Appellant
Vs
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
E/Appeal No. 2024/2008
(Arising out of order in original No.5/Comm/LKO/CX -2008 dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow)
M/s O.P. Gandhi Appellant
Vs
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
Appeared for the Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Advocate
Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate
Appeared for the Respondent: Shri Nitin Pathak, DR
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
ORDER
Per Archana Wadhwa:
All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical.
2. The dispute required to be resolved is as to whether conversion of motor spirit into motor spirit power and of HSD into HSD turbojet by mixing small quantities of multifunctional additives would amount to manufacture or not.
3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issues are covered in respect of the same parties by the following decisions of the Tribunal:-
Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Delhi 2009 (234) ELT 648 (Tri.Del) Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Lucknow 2009 (240) ELT 403 (Tri.Del)
4. It stands held in the above decisions that blending of duty paid unleaded motor spirit and HSD with multifunctional Additive will not amount to manufacture as there is no change in characteristics use of the resultant product.
5. As against the above, the learned DR has drawn our attention to the Tribunals decision in the case of CCE Patna Vs. Indian Oil Corp Ltd 2011 (274) ELT 428 (Trib.-Kol) wherein it was held that process of blending of imported superior Kerosene oil with domestically/indigenously produced kerosene oil to raise the smoke point from 15 mm to 18 mm, so as to bring into existence kerosene which is complete excisable and marketable product as per the BIS standard 1459-1974, amounts to manufacture. However, we find that the issue involved in the said decision is entirely different from the precedent decision quoted supra. The process was different than the one involved in the present appeals and there was a categorical finding of the final product being different from the starting products.
6. The appellants have also relied on a recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Osnar Chemical Pvt Ltd 2012 TOIL 3 SC CX laying down that mixing of polymers and additives to base bitumen does not result in manufacture of a new marketable commodity. However, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal involving the same issue between the same parties and the Revenue has not been able to show any other contrary decision on the issue. As such, by following the earlier decision, we set aside the impugned order, confirming demand against the oil company and imposing penalties on various officials of the oil company. All the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) (ARCHANA WADHWA) Judicial Member (RAKESH KUMAR) Technical Member MPS* 6