2017 (3) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under N/N. 120/84-CE and N/N. 287/86-CE dated 5th May 1986 - clearance of Servoquench 11 and Servotherm medium - Held that - the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd 1999 (9) TMI 375 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA , has excluded straight blended oils from the purview of speciality oils and, hence, assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of N/N. 287/86-CE for the two products that, admittedly, are straight blends. However, the impugned order has extended benefit of N/N. 120/84-CE which is without any restriction or condition save that the products should be blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases. Even if N/N. 287/86-CE claimed by assessee in the classification list is not extendable and has been denied in the order of original authority, the claim for duty-free clearances cannot be denied. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Explanation to notification no. 287/86-CE dated 5th May 1986 for exemption of 'speciality oils' under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by Revenue against an order-in-appeal dated 21st November 2005 regarding demand covered by three show cause notices for the period from 13th August 1991 to 31st January 1992. The dispute revolves around the clearance of specific products by the assessee, where exemption under notification no. 120/84-CE and notification no. 287/86-CE was claimed. The original authority confirmed a demand under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, identifying two products as wrongly claiming exemption as 'speciality oils' and three others as wrongly availing benefits as 'lubricating oils and greases.'

The impugned order set aside the entire demand, but Revenue contested the exemption granted to two products, 'Servoquench 11' and 'Servotherm medium.' The appeal necessitated the interpretation of the Explanation to notification no. 287/86-CE, particularly the definition of 'speciality oil.' Revenue argued that the products in question were straight blends of mineral oils, not meeting the criteria of the notification.

The judgment highlighted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, emphasizing the specific requirements for exemption under the notification. The appellate authority's reliance on previous tribunal decisions was scrutinized, leading to a detailed analysis of the legal interpretation regarding the scope of 'speciality oils' under the relevant notifications.

The counsel for the assessee presented arguments based on the product catalogue and previous tribunal decisions supporting their claim for exemption. The contention included challenging the assumption that notification no. 287/86-CE amended notification no. 120/84-CE, asserting that straight blending did not constitute manufacture justifying the demand.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, noting that while the products did not qualify as 'speciality oils' under notification no. 287/86-CE, they were eligible for exemption under notification no. 120/84-CE. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the two notifications and upheld the benefit of duty-free clearances for the products in question based on the applicable exemption.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal interpretations surrounding the exemption notifications, clarifying the criteria for 'speciality oils' and 'lubricating oils and greases.' The decision highlighted the importance of precise statutory interpretation in determining the eligibility for duty exemptions under the Central Excise Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the specific provisions of the relevant notifications.