2017 (12) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - motor spirit or not? - The contention in the grounds of appeal is that the scheme of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 does not mandatorily required goods to meet BIS specifications and, therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original is not sustainable - Held that - The learned counsel for the respondent has taken us through the reports given by CRCL dated 29.08.2003 which indicated that it was not possible for the CRCL to say whether the samples drawn from the goods manufactured by the respondent could be used as fuel in the spark ignition engines - also, Shri Rathore during his cross examination has agreed that the opinions given by him were without any conduct of any test in CRCL - the respondent shall be entitled for consequential relief as per law - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Compliance with BIS specifications for motor spirit

Classification of Goods:
The appeal pertains to the classification of goods manufactured by the respondent under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified as 'motor spirit' under a specific Tariff Item, while the respondent had classified them differently. The matter was previously remanded for denovo adjudication after cross-examining the experts.

Compliance with BIS Specifications:
The dispute also revolves around whether the goods manufactured by the respondent meet the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) specifications required for classification as motor spirit. Reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) and the Indian Institute of Petroleum (IIP) were crucial in determining compliance with these specifications.

Detailed Analysis:
The Revenue argued that the goods should be classified as 'motor spirit' based on expert opinions and test reports. However, the respondent challenged this classification, emphasizing discrepancies in the opinions provided by experts and the actual test results from the IIP. The IIP report highlighted that the goods did not meet the required specifications for motor gasoline, citing issues such as high aromatic and olefinic contents, a high anti-knock index, and unsuitability for spark ignition engines due to instability and benzene content.

During the proceedings, the respondent's counsel presented arguments based on the CRCL and IIP reports, pointing out that the expert opinions lacked empirical testing and that the IIP, as a premier petroleum institute, provided a comprehensive analysis indicating non-compliance with BIS specifications. The Tribunal considered these submissions and found merit in the respondent's contentions, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as per the respondent's claim and ruled in favor of the respondent, entitling them to consequential relief as per the law. The decision was based on the evidence presented, including expert reports and cross-examination outcomes, emphasizing the importance of meeting BIS specifications for the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.