Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd on 22 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. E/254/05
E/CO/91/05
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BPS(357)19/2004 dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Appellant Vs. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri U.K. Godbole, DGM for Respondent CORAM: SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.K. JAIN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 22.10.2014 Date of Decision: 22.10.2014 ORDER NO. Per: Anil Choudhary
The present appeal of the Revenue arises from Order-in-Appeal No. BPS(357)19/2004 dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee, M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., manufacturer of two/three wheeled motor vehicles and parts thereof, availed modvat on lubricating oil under Rule 57A and 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was used in manufacture of two/three wheelers as lubrication and coolers. After repeated use of these oils, coolants etc. due to wear and tear of machine parts, very fine particles of metal and sediments gets mixed up with oil and due to these rough particles, the lubricating property of oil gets reduced and the same became waste for the respondent assessee and they have disposed off the same as waste. Vide Order-in-Original dated 24.12.2003 in the clearance of the said waste oil relying on the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 2003 (55) RLT 212 (CEGAT-Chennai), wherein it was held that waste oil arising as a result of use of lubricating oil, cutting oil etc. is not specified under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, hence not excisable and proposed demand by the Revenue was dropped. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order, has pleased to reject the Revenues appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The respondent assessee points out that the issue is no longer res integra as the issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the respondents own case where the Revenue has filed appeal being Central Excise Appeal No. 82 of 2006, wherein the question framed was as follows: -
Whether the CESTAT is correct in law by holding that no duty is payable on waste oil emerging after use of lubricating oil, coolants, etc. (on which modvat credit was taken) by ignoring the Tribunal decision in the case of Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. 2005 (184) ELT 405 (Tri-Chennai). The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to decide in favour of the assessee, wherein the Tribunal has decided in favour of the assessee following the ruling in the case of Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2000 (116) ELT 204 (Tri), wherein it was held that waste oil emerging after use of lubricating oil is not dutiable.
4. Thus, in view of the Hon'ble High Courts ruling in the assessees own case, we follow the same and accordingly, dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. The Cross-objection is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(P.K. Jain) (Anil Choudhary)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
1