Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1997 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (12) TMI 646 - SC - Central Excise
Issues Involved: Interpretation of exemption notification for coal tar products under Tariff Item 11 of Central Excise Tariff.
Summary: 1. The appellant, a company manufacturing coal tar products, claimed full exemption from excise duty based on a notification exempting tar under Tariff Item 11. The dispute arose as the Department argued that the goods did not fall under Tariff Item 11 for exemption. 2. The Tribunal, considering the Chemical Examiner's report, found that some products of the appellant fell under Clause (5) of Tariff Item 11 and were exempt from excise duty. However, certain products were not granted relief based on a previous decision. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous case distinguishing coal tar and coal tar pitch, stating that pitch was a separate commodity obtained from distillation of tar, not qualifying as partially distilled tar. 4. The term "partially distilled tar" in Tariff Item 11(2) was analyzed, with the conclusion that coal tar pitch was distinct from coal tar or partially distilled tar. 5. The respondents argued that the appellant's products, various types of pitch, did not qualify for exemption under Tariff Item 11(5). 6. Citing a previous judgment, the appellant contended that the products qualified for exemption as "tar" under the extended definition in Tariff Item 11. 7. A distinction was made by the respondents between tar and pitch products, claiming the appellant's products were not tar distilled from coal and did not qualify for exemption. 8. The Court interpreted the Tariff heading and inclusive definition of "tar," concluding that pitch obtained by distillation of tar fell within the definition of tar distillation product. 9. Referring to a dictionary definition, the Court emphasized that coal tar itself is a type of pitch, supporting the inclusion of pitch as a tar distillation product for exemption. 10. The Court held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and allowing the appeal with no costs awarded.
|