Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Utkal Hydrocarbons vs Cce on 20 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(73)ECC329, 2001(137)ELT1307(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against order in appeal date 21.7.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
2. In the impugned order the 'Furnace Oil' manufactured by the appellants was held to be classified under heading 2707.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants filed classification list classified this product under heading 2710.90 and the classification list was duly approved. He submits that the present show cause notice was issued on the ground that the product in question has a predominance of aromatic constituents hence it is classified under heading 2707.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. He submits that adjudicating authority relied upon the letter from M/s SAIL the supplier of the inputs to the appellants. He submits that adjudicating authority after relying upon the letter held that supplier of the inputs i.e. M/s SAIL have confirmed the predominance of aromatic constituents of the inputs. He submit that copy of this letter was never supplied to appellants. He further contended the first show cause notice was issued on 4.4.96 whereas the Assistant Commissioner wrote to the SAIL on 8.4.96 seeking clarification in respect of the inputs supplied by the SAIL to the appellants. Ld. Counsel submits that this information given by the SAIL is not a part of show cause notice and is not a relied upon documents. He further submits that after passing an adjudicating order the appellants obtained this letter and further obtained clarification from the SAIL the supplier of inputs and vide letter dated 13.4.99 M/s SAIL clarified that the percentage of aromatic hydro carbon in the input cannot be ascertained. He submits that this clarification was placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the clarification issued by the supplier inputs. He therefore, submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice.
3. Heard Ld. SDR.
4. In this case the adjudicating authority relied upon the letter issued by M/s SAIL and come to the conclusion that the inputs and predominance of aromatic "constituents". This letter was obtained by the Revenue after the issuance of show cause notice and adjudicating authority had not supplied the same to the appellant. The appellants obtained this letter only after the adjudication order was passed and they also sought some clarification from the SAIL in respect of inputs and same was produced from the Commissioner (Appeals). This clarification was not taken into consideration by the Ld. Commissioner.
5. The appellants want the classification of the product in question under heading 2710.90 which reads as under:
Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude; preparations not elsewhere specified or included, containing by weight 70% or more of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals, these oils being the basic constituents of the preparations.
A specific querry from the Bench the Counsel was unable to show that the inputs are obtained from petroleum oil or oils obtained from bituminous minerals. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the issue involved in this case required reconsideration. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The appellants and the revenue are at liberty to produce evidence in support of their claim. The adjudicating authority shall decide the issue after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.