2013 (10) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Activity Manufacture OR Not the processes of decantation and distillation done by the appellant - whether processed goods remain same as Crude Oil - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The processes undertaken by the appellant does not lead to emergence of a new product and, therefore, no manufacturing is involved - The processes undertaken by the appellant it is evident that commingled crude oil received from the supplier is unloaded into a storage tank - The material is allowed to settle and water collected in the bottom of tanks is slowly removed - However, the bottom is left with the mixture containing mixed quantity of water and commingled Crude Oil which is heated in a distillation tower - The light petroleum fractions are cooled in the condenser and collected separately in receivers and distilled water in separate receivers - The light petroleum fractions separately recovered after the processes of decanting, distillation and left at the bottom of water tank, containing small quantity of commingled crude oil are again mixed. It is evident that only water is taken out of the product and accordingly, after HSN explanatory notes given under heading 27.09, even the processes like decantation or distillation done to separate hydrocarbons and their remixing during the course of processes will not take the product out of CETH- 2709 - The process of decantation and distillation are only physical processes and there is no chemical modification and at the end of the process the ingredients are mixed again making the same mixture except taking away of water content - Moreover, it is also observed from the chemical testing done by the DGCEI that two reports are in the favour of appellant - appellant has made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of confirmed dues and penalty - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of the product ARH-C oil under Central Excise Tariff Heading 27090000 or 27101990.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the processes undertaken do not lead to a new product, thus no manufacturing is involved. Chemical testing reports from different laboratories indicated that the disputed product is a derivative of Petroleum Crude Oil, not a Crude Mineral Hydrocarbon Oil. The appellant contended that processes like decantation and distillation do not change the essential character of the product, citing HSN explanatory notes under heading 27.09. The appellant's case was supported by reports from the Central Excise and Customs Laboratory and a private laboratory, both confirming the product as belonging to the category of Crude Oil.

The Revenue argued that samples from the crude stage and final stage showed different chemical compositions, leading to the manufacture of a product falling under a different heading. However, after examining the processes undertaken by the appellant, it was found that only water was removed during decantation and distillation processes. The appellant mixed the recovered light petroleum fractions back with the remaining mixture, indicating no chemical modification. The Tribunal noted that the processes were physical and did not change the essential character of the product, as per the HSN explanatory notes. Additionally, chemical testing reports favored the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay on the recoveries of confirmed dues and penalties until the appeal's disposal.