Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commr. Of Central Excise-Ranchi vs M/S. S.A.I.L on 31 August, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Excise Appeal No. 70749 & 70911/2013
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.61-62/RAN/2013 dated-11/04/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
Commr. of Central Excise-Ranchi
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s. S.A.I.L.
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri H.S. Abedin, A.C. (A.R.) for the Appellant (s) Ms. Satabdi Chatterjee, Advocate for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT HONBLE SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing & Decision :31/08/2017 ORDER NO: F/O 77185-186/2017 Per Shri Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra Both the appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No 61-62/RAN/2013 dated-11/04/2013. Period of dispute is 07/12/2008 to 31.03.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public sector undertaking who produce the Benzene and Toluene which have arisen during the process of manufacture of Coke Oven Gases. It is claimed that the purity level of their product is over 96%. The certificate of the Laboratory viz. Coal and Cargo Carbonization Laboratory is an R&D Centre for Iron and Steel which is an ISO 9001 certified organisation, have been produced before the department and the same was never contested. Further, the respondent assessee produced a certificate from the DGM (O) BPP dated 26/12/2008, where it is claimed that the product Benzene falls under CTH 29022000 and Toluene under CTH 29023000 but the Department has classified under 27071000 and 27072000 respectively. Both the lower authorities have accepted the plea of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeal.
3. With this background, we heard Shri H.S. Abedin, Counsel for the department and Ms. Satabdi Chatterjee, Counsel for the appellant. After hearing both the appeals and on perusal of the records, it appears in the instant case, the issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Vs. Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. [2000 (126) E.L.T. 1232 (Tribunal) where it was observed that:
3.2?The respondents were testing samples of their products, Benzene and Toluene in their Quality Control Laboratory. The said reports indicated that the percentage of Benzene and Toluene by weight separately was less than 96% e.g. in respect of clearance on 16-5-1990, the weight of Toluene was 87.15%, in respect of clearance on 12-6-1990, the weight of Toluene was 84.30%, in respect of clearance on 11-6-1990, weight of Benzene was 75.38% and in respect of clearance on 7-7-1990, weight of Benzene was 86.88%. The Quality Control Laboratory reports mentioned in the charts enclosed as annexures A and B to the show cause notice clearly indicated that Benzene or Toluene contents were less than 96%. Further, the Product Bulletin (Annexure Y3 to the show cause notice) of Benzene and Toluene indicates purity more than 96% which is in conformity with ISI specifications. Since the test reports showed purity less than 96%, Benzene and Toluene were different varieties from Benzene and Toluene of higher purity, and, therefore. Benzene and Toluene manufactured by the assessees is classifiable under CETA sub-headings 2707.10 and 2707.20 respectively, as contended by the Revenue and not under Chapter Heading 29.02 as claimed by the respondents. In the instant case, the service was issued from the R&D Centre of Iron and Steel of the respondent which is a public sector undertaking. Further, certificate from DGM (O) BPP was also produced. To our minds, the said certificates are sufficient for the classification of Benzene and Toluene from Chapter 7129 of CETA. It may be mentioned that in subsequent years, the production in question has been accepted by the appellant under Chapter Heading 29 of CETA.
4. In the light of the above observation, we do not find any reason to interfere the impugned order and the same is sustained.
5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- Sd/-
(SHRI V. PADMANABHAN ) (JUSTICE DR. SATISH CHANDRA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
k.b/-
Excise Appeal No. 70749 & 70911/2013
2