Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Countering the arguments, Ms. D. Lilly, General Manager Finance of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., submitted that the scope of sub-Heading 2710.20 is identical to that of the Tariff Item 7 of the Old Central Excise Tariff; that the impugned product was assessed under Item 7 before 28.2.1986 when the Present Tariff came into operation; that both under Item 7 and sub-Heading 2710.20, the specifications for kerosene are same i.e. (i) smoke point 18 MM or more, (ii) final boiling point not exceeding 300°C; that since the impugned product LARO confirms to these specifications, it is classifiable under sub-Heading 2710.29 as "Other" not being kerosene or Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) against 2710.99 which is only for residuary products and cannot be applied to the goods having specific identifiable characteristics. She also emphasized that LARO is nothing but a fraction of kerosene which meets all the specifications mentioned in the sub-heading 2710.20; that the onus is on the Excise Authorities to prove that LARO cannot be classified under sub-Heading 2710.29; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India. 1983 ELT 1566 that "when an article is by all standards classifiable under a specific item in the Tariff Schedule, it would be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to the residuary items."
4. She also submitted that phrase "that is to say" mentioned in the Heading expands the scope of the relevant entry so as to include within its ambit not merely kerosene which is ordinarily used as an 'illuminant in oil burning lamps' and ATF, but also any hydrocarbon oil (excluding mineral oil and turpentine substitute) which has a smoke point of 18 mm or more and has a final boiling point not exceeding 300°C; that these identifiable tests could be applied to any hydrocarbon oil for determining classification under 2710.29. She relied upon the decision in CCE, Bombay vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2000 (119) ELT 26 (T-LB) wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that words "that is to say" was "apparently meant to exhaustively enumerate the kind of oil falling within the category of kerosene and aviation turbine fuel ..... Enumeration of various kinds of oils coming within the category of kerosene and aviation turbine fuel can be any hydrocarbon oil having a smoke point of 18mm or more or has a final boiling point not exceeding 300°C. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in CCE, Vadodara vs. Indian Petochemicals Corporation Ltd., 1990 (46) ELT 173(T) wherein Heavy Normal Paraffins was classified under Item 7.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has given a specific finding that "there is no dispute on facts and in particular the Assistant Collector has conceded in his order that LARO has a smoke point above 18 mm and has a final boiling point not exceeding 300°C". The relevant Heading reads as under:
"-- Kerosene (which is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps) and aviation turbine fuel, that is to say, any hydrocarbon oil (excluding mineral colza turpentine substitute) which has a smoke point of eighteen millimeters or more and has a final boiling point no exceeding 300°C:
2710.21 ---- Aviation turbine fuel 2710.29 - Other Sub-heading 2710.29 mentions "Other" and not 'kerosene". This is because the Heading covers within its ambit kerosene and ATF that is to say any hydrocarbon oil having a smoking point 18mm or more and having a final boiling point not exceeding 300°C. The phrase "that is to say" has been interpreted by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. by holding that "This expression was apparently meant to exhaustively enumerate the kinds of oil falling within the category of kerosene and ATF. In the said decision, the issue related to classification of 'Heavy Normal Paraffin' (HNP) and the rival sub-Heading like the present matter were 2710.29 and 2710.99 and the issue referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench was whether Heavy Normal Paraffin is to be classified under 2710.99 as it is a product different from kerosene. The Larger Bench observed that "Any hydrocarbon oil, which satisfy these physical properties, will fall within the tariff sub-Heading 2710.19...... It is common case that HNP is a hydrocarbon oil. It is also the admitted case that HNP has a smoke point of eighteen millimeters or more and has a final boiling point not exceeding 300°C.... It is to be classified under 2710.29......" In the said matter also the contention of the Revenue was that HNP was not known as kerosene in the common parlance and therefore it would not fall within the category of kerosene as defined in Chapter 27. The Larger Bench did not agree with the said submission of the Revenue by holding as under: