Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Reliance Rasayan Private Limited vs Cce And C on 8 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(129)ELT510(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the product "Lomafinish 45" manufactured by the appellant is textile lubricating preparation which is exempted by Notification 45/95.
2. The stay application was listed for hearing on 1-10-2000 and on our perception that the appeal itself could be disposed of, we ordered the appeal to be listed today. The appellant is absent today and was absent on the last occasion despite notice.
3. The Deputy Chief Chemist of the department, after testing the product, has said "It is composed mainly of organic surface active agent with small amount of mineral oil". The Commissioner (Appeals) finds that this description is sufficient to say that the product is not a lubricating preparation, but is one used for the oil or grease treatment of textile material and leather etc. He has relied upon the Board's circular to say that such goods would not be entitled to the benefit of the notification.
4. The Notification 12/94 exempts inter alia lubricating preparations classifiable under Heading 3403.10. The heading covers both lubricating preparations and those used for the oil and grease treatment of textiles and leather etc. However, the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 34.03 indicates among the preparation classifiable under this heading "water dispersible textile lubricating preparations containing a high proportion of surface-active agents together with mineral oils and other chemicals". If the preparations were used for lubricating textiles (as for example in yarn to facilitate its winding or weaving) it would be a lubricating preparation. The Commissioner (Appeals) in fact records and appears to have accepted the appellant's submission that the product is used as lubricating preparation. How he concludes from this that it is one for oil treatment of textiles is not made clear.
5. In the light of this apparent contradiction, and in the absence of a clear reasoning in the order for the conclusion that is arrived at, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall re-examine the composition of the product and its use afresh, and pass orders in accordance with law on its eligibility to the notification.