Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It may be seen from the test results on HNPs that the product conforms to the specifications laid down in Item 7, CET, as it stood after the Finance Act, 1982, as regards smoke point and final boiling point. This position is not in dispute (the period of the present dispute is from 1-3-1982 to 28-2-1983). That the goods are not ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps is also not in dispute. The goods are sold by the respondents to small scale units for further processing for plasticizers.

20. Continuing, Shri Sundar Rajan submitted that the question of double taxation did not arise in the present case since the goods fell under Item No. 68 and not 7. The processes applied to kerosene changed the character, name and use of the product and new goods emerged. In this connection, he referred to the Tribunal's observations in para 7 of its order in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Shillong 1985 (22) E.L.T. 189.

21. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record. There is no dispute on the position that the subject goods - HNPs - were found on repeated tests to confrom to the prescriptions in Item No. 7, CET, as to smoke point and final boiling point. It is also an indisputed position that the goods are not used as illuminant in oil burning lamps. The question is whether, even so, the goods fall under Item No. 7, CET, as contended by the respondents. It they do not, the classification will be under Item No. 68, as contended by the appellant-Collector.

[The Petroleum Dictionary by David F. TVER and Richard W. Berry] It may be seen that the indicated uses of one of the products are other than as illuminants. Even so, it would have fallen under Item 7 CET but for it being specifically excluded. This necessarily implies that so long as an oil conforms to the definition of "mineral oil" in Explanation I to item 7 read with Explanation I to item 6, CET, and to the smoke point and final boiling point criteria laid down in item 7, it would fall for classification under item 7.

27. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we see that the term "Kerosene", though a commonly understood term, has been defined by the Legislature and the definition contains the technical terms smoke point and final boiling point. If the intention of the Legislature was to restrict the scope of the term to "Kerosene" properly so called, and as popularly understood, there would appear to have been no need to define the term. This is all the more so because, as we have seen earlier, sub-item(2) read "Others" and not "Kerosene" which would have been the term employed if the intention was to restrict the total coverage of Item 7 to A.T.F. and Kerosene and the coverage of sub-item (2) to Kerosene. Since such is not the case, it appears to us that any mineral oil (excluding mineral colza oil and turpentine substitute), other than A.T.F., which has a smoke point of 18 mm or more and has final boiling point not exceeding 300°C falls within sub-item (2) though it may not be Kerosene as ordinarily understood and ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps.