2002 (12) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 120/84-C.E. for 'Spindle Oil-22' product.

Detailed Analysis:
The main issue in the present appeal was whether the benefit of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-84 applied to the appellants' product, 'Spindle Oil-22', used for lubrication purposes. The appellants argued that the product qualified for the Notification, while the Revenue contended that a significant portion of the product was used in rubber industries, disqualifying it from the Notification's benefit.

The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellants' own case where a similar interpretation of the Notification was made for another lubricating oil, and the benefit was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Notification exempted blended or compounded lubricating oils obtained by blending duty paid mineral oils. It was noted that the impugned products were manufactured by blending duty paid base mineral oils, meeting the criteria specified in the Notification. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument based on the classification under sub-heading 2710.60, stating that the impugned products were blended or compounded lubricants, satisfying the Notification's specifications.

The Tribunal highlighted that sub-heading 2710.60 covered lubricating oils with a flash point of 94^0C or above, and other lubricating oils would fall under sub-heading 2710.99 as "Others." It was emphasized that the Notification exempted lubricating oil without specifying any Tariff Heading/Sub-Heading, indicating that all lubricating oils meeting the specified conditions were eligible for the exemption. Since the appellants complied with the Notification's requirements, and the mineral oils used for blending were duty paid, the benefit of the Notification was deemed available to the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of Notification No. 120/84-C.E. applied to the impugned products, and the appeal was allowed based on the previous decision in the appellants' favor.

In conclusion, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellants by applying the ratio of the previous decision, setting aside the impugned Order and granting the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.