1984 (8) TMI 326 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether imported Palmolein is eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs as an unprocessed vegetable non-essential oil (VNE oil) under specific notifications and whether it falls under the definition of palm oil for excise duty exemption.

Analysis:
The appeals involved the issue of whether Palmolein imported by the appellants qualified for exemption from additional duty of customs. The matter was transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as appeals. The main question was whether Palmolein was considered unprocessed VNE oil eligible for exemption under certain notifications and whether it was equivalent to palm oil for excise duty exemption under specific notifications.

The appellants claimed that RBD palmolein, being akin to RBD palm oil, should be exempt from additional duty of customs as it was not manufactured in India. They argued that the conversion of palm oil into palmolein did not amount to "manufacture" for excise duty purposes, thus exempting it from excise duty and subsequently from additional duty on import.

The Departmental Representative contended that palm oil and palmolein were distinct products based on characteristics and uses outlined in a referenced book. They argued that previous tribunal orders and government reviews had established that palmolein did not qualify for exemption under specific notifications due to being a different product from palm oil.

The Tribunal analyzed the notifications in question, highlighting the exemption for unprocessed VNE oils and processed VNE oils under Notification No. 33/63 and the exemption for palm oil under Notification No. 150/64. The characteristics and uses of palm oil and palmolein were compared, emphasizing the differences in processing and standards, leading to the conclusion that palmolein did not qualify as palm oil for duty exemption.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments regarding the classification of palmolein as palm oil and the applicability of excise duty exemptions. It was determined that palmolein, while falling under Item 12-CET as a vegetable non-essential oil, was not equivalent to palm oil for duty exemption purposes. Therefore, both appeals were dismissed, and the appellants' claims for duty exemption on Palmolein were rejected.