Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Southern Refineries Ltd vs Trivandrum on 15 April, 2024
E/327,328/2012
E/21890, 21902/2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNALBANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Central Excise Appeal No. 327 of 2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1 & 2/2011-CX(COMMR) dated
31.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram.)
M/s. Southern Refineries
Limited Appellant(s)
Kuzhinjanvila, Parassala P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 502.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Excise
I.C.E Bhavan, Respondent(s)
Press Club Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
WITH
(i) Central Excise Appeal No.328/2012 (M/s. Southern Refineries Limited vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram) (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1 & 2/2011-CX(COMMR) dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram.)
(ii) Central Excise Appeal No.21890/2015 (M/s.
Southern Refineries Limited vs. CCE,
Thiruvananthapuram)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-37-15-16 dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.)
(iii) Central Excise Appeal No.21902/2015 (M/s.
Southern Refineries Limited vs. CCE,
Thiruvananthapuram)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-65-15-16 dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.) APPEARANCE:
Shri M. S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the Appellant Shri H. Jayathirtha, Authorised Representative for the Respondent Page 1 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Final Order No. 20258-20261 /2024 DATE OF HEARING: 17.10.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 15.04.2024 PER : R. BHAGYA DEVI The appellant, M/s. Southern Refineries Limited have filed the following appeals:
Demand of Excise Duty Appeal No. Impugned Order Period with Interest Common OIO NO. 1 & 2 /2011 Rs. 6,32,56,681/-
CX (COMMR) dated 31.10.2011 and
passed by the CCE, Rs. 32,93,415/-
Thiruvananthapuram (Total Rs. 01.03.2000
6,65,50,096/-) to
1.SCN No. 4/2010 dated 31.03.2010
E/327/2012 07.06.2010 for the period from
01.03.2000 to 31.03.2010 And
E/328/2012 2. SCN No. 7/2011 CE (JC) dated 04.05.2011 for April 2010 to September 2010 E/21890/2015 OIA No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP- Held that duty General 037-15-16 dated 14.05.2015 was payable on Order and passed by the CCE(Appeals), re-processing of No demand Cochin, waste oil from of Excise 01.03.2000 duty.
onwards Rs. 21,63,000/-
Denial of SSI exemption on the OIA No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP- ground that the 65-15-16 dated 29.05.2015 aggregate value 04/2011to passed by the CCE (Appeals), of clearances E/21902/2015 Cochin. during 2010-11 03/2012 (arising from OIO No. 01/2013 exceeded Rs. 150 Lakhs CX (ADC) dated 08.02.2013)
2. The Order-in-Original No.1 & 2/2011-CX (COMMR.) dated 31.10.2011 is the de novo order based on the directions of the CESTAT, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 1296/09 dated 28.10.2009. The other one is the Order-in-Appeal No.TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-037-15-16 dated 14.05.2015. Both these orders deal with the issue whether the activity undertaken by the appellant to convert the waste oils which is neither fit for use nor marketable as the primary product into lubricating oils which is not only fit for use and easily marketable as a primary Page 2 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 product under Chapter 27101 980 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 would amount to manufacture. The Order-in- Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-65-15-16 dated 29.05.2015 deals with the issue on extending the benefit of SSI notification to the appellant during the relevant period.
3. The Commissioner observing that the waste oil after reprocessing is fit for use as a primary product and is marketable, hence, concludes that it amounts to 'manufacture' by virtue of the provisions contained in Note 9 of Chapter 27 which reads as:
"In relation to lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of heading 2710 labelling relabelling of containers or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shell amount to manufacture."
The Commissioner also demanded the duty from September 2000 to September 2010 under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, on the ground that the Hon'ble High Court had granted interim stay with effect from 23.02.2001 and the stay was vacated after the issuance of the CESTAT order on 28.10.2009. Since the department could not demand the amount during the period of stay, it does not prevent the department from demanding the same once the stay is vacated as per the Explanation to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944.
4. Shri M.S. Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellants are engaged in collection and processing of degraded waste oils-sludge oil, slurry, used transformer oils, used hydraulic oils, heat transfer oil, spent oil, used lubricating oils, oil emulsions, oil spills, bilge water, etc.,; which is nothing but waste oil as per the definition provided under Note 3 to Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Act 1985. The department has held that fractional distillation carried out on the waste oil and selling the reprocessed base oil amounts to 'manufacture' in terms of Note 9 under Chapter 27 and hence, Page 3 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 duty is payable on the value of such processed oil sold to the customers.
4.1 It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Trivandrum Division vide order dated 31.7.2000 held that the process amounts to 'manufacture' and liable to pay central excise duty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.17/2001-CE dated 19.01.2001. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6138/2001-E before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and a stay was granted vide Order dated 23.02.2001. Simultaneously, an appeal was filed with the Tribunal against the same Order-in- Appeal dated 19.01.2001. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Final Order dated 09.02.2009 held that the constitutional validity of the Chapter Note could not be challenged and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the applicants within 3 months from the date of the judgement. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1296/09 dated 28.10.2009 set aside the Order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order. Based on these directions, the original authority vide Denovo Order No.4/CE/2010 held that the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty on the entire quantity of reprocessed lubricating oils manufactured and cleared from their factory from 01.03.2000 onwards which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) against which Appeal No. E/21890/2015 is filed. The learned counsel submits that Appeal number E/327/2012 and E/328/2012 are filed against Order in Original 1 & 2/2011 CX COMMR dated 31.10.2011. Appeal number E/21902/2015 is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. TVM-EXCUS-000-APP-65-15-16 dated 29.05.2015 where the Commissioner (A) had denied the SSI exemption and demanded Central Excise duty of Rs.21,63,000/- for the period 1.4.2011 to 22.08.2011 on the ground that the aggregate clearances of the excisable goods had exceeded ₹4,00,00,000 during the period from 2010-2011.
Page 4 of 14E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 4.2 The learned counsel submitted that waste oils are collected from various sources and is pumped into the used royal storage tanks and later, pumped into the processing unit. The processing plant consists of 4 distillation columns and each distillation column consists of reboilers/heaters, coolers and condensers in addition to vacuum system, circulating pumps etc.,; the first module bottoms which is free from light fractions and water is fed to the second module and then, the water is allowed to settle in the tank and is drained to an oil/water separator. Two streams of base oils are recovered from the second module and bottoms from this column is fed into the third module. The products from the third module are different grades of base oils. The raw base oil produced from second and third modules are again mixed with activated alumina clay to improve the colour of base oil. The oil clay mixture is cooled and sent for filtration. A major part of the output is sold as reprocessed oil in bulk without any further treatment and about 1/4th base oil of high viscosity is blended with lubricant additives for converting them to different grades of lubricating oils which are packed in barrels and other small packs and sold as lubricants.
4.3 The Counsel submits that the authorities have admitted that the appellant was collecting waste oils and used oils from various sources, subjected them to vacuum distillation process and made it fit for use. The oil made fit for use was the reprocessed base oil. The process of removing impurities from the waste oils amounts to manufacture and it is concluded that the reprocessed base oil emerging from the process of purification was lubricating oil and the product was marketable to the consumer and hence, amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 9 to Chapter 27 of the CETA 1985. He further submits that the resultant reprocessed base oils of various viscosities and fuel grade oil were cleared as under:
base oil-light - as rubber processing oil in bulk, base oil - heavy-blended with additives and chemicals, pattern barrels and smaller packs and sold for use as lubricating oil under DUROL brand name Page 5 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 base oil - medium-as processed base oil, mineral oil, general purpose oil, etc; in bulk fuel grade oil cleared in bulk 4.4 It is further submitted that the authorities have completely misconstrued the processes undertaken the nature of the products sold/cleared. Waste oil has been defined in Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 27 and is classifiable under chapter heading 2710 2000, 2710 9100, 2710 9900 while lubricating oil which is classified under Chapter Heading 27101980 as per the Chapter Note 9/4 of Chapter 27 of CETA 1985. It is settled law that the process of removing impurities and contaminants in the waste oils and their segregation to base oils/ reprocessed oils of different viscosities does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Chapter Note 9/4 under Chapter 27 as the chapter Note 9/4 is in relation to lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of Chapter Heading 2710 where labelling/ relabelling of containers and/or repacking from bulk pack to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumers shall amount to manufacture.
4.5 He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Servo-Med Industries Private Limited versus CCE Mumbai 2015 (319) ELT 578 (S.C.) held that if there is no transformation to a different commodity there is no manufacture.
4.6 Further, reliance is also placed on the following decisions:
MMTC versus Union of India: 1983 (13) ELT 1542 S.C. Mineral Oil Corporation versus CCE Kanpur: 1999 (114) ELT 166 (Tribunal) CEE JEE Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin: 2010 (251) ELT 439 (Tri-Bang.) 4.7 He also relied on the CBEC Circular No.1024/12/2016-CX dated 11.04.2016 where clarification was issued with regard to used waste oils. It is also submitted that Page 6 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 excise duty was paid on the reprocessed base oil-heavy, one of the resultant products which was blended with additives and chemicals packed in barrels and other small packs and sold as lubricants which is also admitted at para 8.3 of the Order-in-
Original dated 27.01.2010.
4.8 With regard to limitation, it is submitted that the show-cause notice dated 7.6.2010 covers the period from 9/2000 to 03/2010; show-cause notice dated 04.05.2011 covers the period from April 2010 to September 2010 and the show- cause notice dated 7.6.2010 covers the period of over 10 years without any allegation of fraud wilful misstatement and suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act 1944 with intention to evade payment of excise duty. The reasons of Hon'ble High Court's stay order quoted by the Commissioner, is not applicable since the interim stay did not prevent the Commissioner from issuing the notice during the pendency of the original petition and in the absence of any stay on the service of show-cause notice ,the department cannot take shelter under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence, the demand is barred by limitation. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gokak Patel Volcart Limited versus Collector of Central excise 1987 (28) ELT 53 (S.C.) and Metal Forgings versus Union of India 2002 (146) ELT 241 (S.C.).
4.9 The learned counsel submits that with regard to Appeal No. E/21902/2015, the authorities have included clearances of all goods on the following grounds:
a. reprocessed base oil pack and sold in bulk for use as lubricating oils cleared on payment of duty after crossing the exemption limits b. other reprocessed oils which are cleared in bulk without payment of duty for computation of the aggregate value of clearances during 2010 to 2011 The learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the processes undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, there is no manufacturing of excisable goods Page 7 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 attracting levy of excise duty and therefore, the question of including the value of clearances does not arise.
5. The Authorised Representative (AR) has submitted that the various treatments in the process of removal of impurities resulted in a completely separate distinct and identifiable product different from the input material which is marketable; hence, as held by the authorities, the product is marketable and leviable to excise duty. He also submits that since there was a stay from the High Court, the show-cause notice dated 04.06.2010 for the period from 2000 to 2010 is legally sustainable. He also submits that the judgement by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cee Jee Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin issued vide Final Order No. 20671-20672/2019 has been appealed against and hence, has not attained finality
6. Heard both sides at length and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is collecting used oil from various sources and subjecting them to various processes to make them fit for use and they are clearing them as reprocessed base oil/lubricants. The question before us is whether these processes amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) read with Chapter Note 9/4 to Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Waste oils is defined under Chapter Heading 2710 which means "waste containing mainly petroleum oils and such oils no longer fit for use as a primary product". Lubricating oil at supplementary note (h) is defined as "any oil which is ordinarily used for lubrication". While waste oils are classified Chapter Heading 2710 and lubricating oil is classified under Chapter Heading 2710 1980.
6.1 For reference Section 2(f) of CEA, 1985 and Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 27 are reproduced below:
Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1985 reads:
(f) "manufacture" includes any process, -Page 8 of 14
E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015
i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product;
ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture; or
iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer;
Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 27 reads as follows:
9. In relation to lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of heading 2710, labelling or relabelling of containers or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to 'manufacture'.
Based on the above definitions of waste oil, lubricating oil and taking into consideration the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii) read with Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 27, the Commissioner concluded that the processes adopted by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Note 9 to Chapter 27 is only with reference to lubricating oils and lubricating preparation under Chapter Heading 2710 1980 which is clearly distinguishable from waste oil which falls under Chapter Heading 2710 and is defined as 'containing mainly petroleum oils and such oils no longer fit for use as a primary product'.
6.2 There is no dispute that the appellant procures waste oils form various sources and after processing them clears as reprocessing base oil and therefore, the application of Section 2(f) read with Note 9 of Chapter 27 itself is misplaced and misconstrued. This is also clarified by CBEC in its Circular No.1024/12/2016-CX dated 11.04.2016 which is reproduced below:
Circular No. 1024/12/2016-CX dated 11.04.2016 To All Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioners of Customs, Central Excise& Service Tax; All Director Generals of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax; All Principal Page 9 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 Commissioners/ Commissioners of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax;
Subject:- Clarification regarding re-refined used or waste-oil - reg Madam/Sir, References have been received regarding excisability of re- refined used oil or waste oil. Various units are engaged in re- refining of waste oil or used lubricating oil collected from the transformers, service stations of vehicles etc. The matter has been examined.
Process
2. Used Oil contains impurities and contaminants such as moisture, diluents, sediments, metal particles and carbon. In refining units, waste or used oil undergoes various process such as dehydration-for removal of moisture, distillation-for removal of diluents, clay polishing- for removal of carbon by adsorption process, filtration-for removal of the clay and the dissolved carbon to render it usable. The oil so obtained from such waste or used oil is packed and sold as base oil, lubricating oil and transformer oil etc. to the consumers for further use.
Classification 2.1 "Waste oil" has been defined in note 3 of chapter 27 of First Schedule of Central Excise tariff Act, 1985 as waste containing mainly petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, whether or not mixed with water. These include:
(a) such oils no longer fit for use as primary products (for example, used lubricating oils used hydraulic oils and used transformer oil);
(b) sludge oils from the storage tanks of petroleum oils, mainly containing such oils high concentration of additives (for example, chemicals) used in the manufacture of primary products; and
(c) such oil in the form of emulsions in water or mixtures with water, such as those resulting from oil spills, storage tank washing, or from the use of cutting oils for machining operations.
2.2. Under Central Excise tariff heading 2710, there are three headings or subclassifications at the single dash (-) level. The first of the three heading at single dash (-) level deals with petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals..........etc. other than those containing bio-diesel and other than waste oil. Second heading at this level deals with those containing biodiesel other than waste oil and the third heading is meant for waste oil. Waste oil is further divided into two subclassifications at eight-digit level, with two dash (--), namely 27109100 and 27109900. Waste oil is classifiable in either of them depending upon its composition. Lubricating oil Page 10 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 on the other hand is classifiable under CETH 27101980, a heading specifically covering lubricating oil.
3. It may be noted that used lubricating oil collected from service stations is not fit for use as primary products and will therefore be classified as waste oil whereas processed waste oil, which becomes fit for use as lubricating oil and would qualify as primary product, will be classified as lubricating oil.
Manufacture
4. Waste oil after processing may become lubricating oil but this process would not amount to manufacture in view of the judgement of tribunal in case of Collector vs Mineral Oil Corporation [1999(114) ELT 166] upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court [2002(140) ELT 248(SC)]. However, the issue also needs to be examined in light of chapter note 4 of chapter 27 which was inserted in the Central Excise Tariff by the Finance Act of 2000.
5.1 Chapter note 4 of chapter 27 is a deeming fiction on manufacture and provides that:-
"In relation to the lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of heading 2710, labelling or re-labelling of containers and re- packing from bulk pack to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumers, shall amount to manufacture"
5.2 This chapter note applies only to "lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of heading 2710". Other goods falling under CETH 2710 are not covered by the chapter note. The deeming fiction provides that when one of the process listed in the chapter note is carried out on lubricating oil or lubricating preparations, it shall be deemed to be manufacture. These processes are-
(i) labelling or re-labelling of containers,
(ii) re-packing from bulk pack to retail packs,
(iii) adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumers.
5.3 Thus for a re-refining unit, the test for levy of Central Excise duty is whether the lubricating oil (produced from the waste oil) has undergone any of the process listed in chapter note 4 of chapter 27 as explained above (paragraph 5.2). Where such process has been carried out, it would amount to manufacture and Central Excise duty would be leviable. Application
6. A unit processing waste oil or used oil would need be examined in above light to decide whether the process undertaken by them amounts to manufacture. Where the process amounts to manufacture, Central Excise duty is payable. The issue is interpretational in nature and therefore where a demand is raised pursuant to this circular, it should be raised for normal period of limitations only. SSI benefit, where admissible, should be extended.
Page 11 of 14E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015
7. Field formations and trade may be informed suitably. Difficulty experienced, if any, in implementing the circular should be brought to the notice of the Board.
(Santosh Kumar Mishra) Under Secretary to the Government of India 7.1 In the case of Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "manufacture takes place on the application of one or more processes. Each process may lead to a change in the goods, but every change does not amount to manufacture. There must be something more- there must be transformation by which something new and different comes into being, that is there must now emerge an article which has a distinctive name, character or use."
7.2 In the case of Mineral Oil Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kanpur (Supra) the Tribunal in similar set of facts as is in the present case has held that "both before and after the processing the product is only transformer oil. That being so it cannot be said that a new and distinct commodity has come into existence consequent to the process under taken by the appellants." This view was upheld by the Supreme Court and accepted by the CBEC as is evident from the Circular referred above.
7.3 In the case of CEE JEE Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin (Supra) wherein it is held that "We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and peruse the records, it is undisputed that the appellant procured used oil from different sources. The processing under taken by the appellant is in form of Vacuum distillation, Centrifuging removal of moisture, carbon and other impurities. The entire tenor of the adjudicating authority while confirming the demand is only on the ground that the used oil was unfit for use as lubricating oils were made fit for the use by the appellant by refining or re-processing the same Page 12 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 and hence, characteristic and the use has changed. Due to which Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 gets attracted and the said activity becomes manufacture. We find that an identical issue was before the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chennai-I Vs. Metropolitan Transport Company. We find that the ratio in the said decision squarely applicable in this case also".
8. In view of the above discussions, the various decisions and the CBEC Board Circular, it is clear that Note 9 of Chapter 27 is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the question of whether reprocessing of used waste oils into reprocessed oils that have marketable would amount to manufacture is answered in the negative concluding that it does not amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, the appeal No. E/327/2012 & E/328/2012 and E/21890/2015 are allowed in favour of the appellant. However, it is also claimed by the appellant that wherever they cleared these processed oils as lubricating oil duty is being discharged on the reprocess base oil
- heavy, one of the resultant products which was blended with additives and chemicals, packed in barrels and other small packs and sold as lubricants. Though, this fact has been noted at para 8.3 of the Order-in-Original No. 04/CE/2010 dated 27.01.2010 as submissions made by the appellant, there is nothing on record to show that these duties have been discharged. To that extent, wherever the reprocessed oils are cleared as 'lubricants' they are liable to pay duty, which needs to e verified as the Appellant claim to have already discharged 8.1 With regard to limitation, the Hon'ble High Court granted a stay with effect from 23.02.2001 which was vacated only after the issuance of the CESTAT order on 28.10.2009, hence, the justification by the Commissioner that they could not have issued the show-cause notice during the interim stay is sustainable. In view of the Explanation under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the notice issued after the vacation Page 13 of 14 E/327,328/2012 E/21890, 21902/2015 of the stay excluding the period of stay for the purpose of limitation is upheld.
8.2 With regard to appeal No. E/21902/2015, the point to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled to avail benefit of SSI Exemption under Notification No.8/2003- CE dated 01.03.2003. The Commissioner (A) has held that since the above process amounts to manufacture, the value needs to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for the period 2010 to 2011. Since, we have already held that the above processes undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture and they are not liable to pay excise duty, therefore, the question of including the value of those goods for computation of the aggregate value of the clearances is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
9. In the result, the respective impugned orders are modified and the appeal Nos. E/327/2012, E/328/2012 and E/21890/2015 are partially allowed by way of remand to the original authority only for limited purpose of verification of the fact that whether the appellants have discharged duty on the reprocessed oil cleared as 'lubricants'. The appeal No. E/21902/2015 is allowed.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 15.04.2024) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 14 of 14