2018 (11) TMI 1285 - HC - Central Excise

Levy of Excise Duty - refined oil - decisions rendered prior to the amendments brought to Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Notes introduced in Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 2004-05 relied upon - Held that - In the context of the additions made to the Chapter notes of Schedule I, process for packing or reCEA packing or refining for the purpose of producing lubricating oil would be a manufacture . This aspect has not been looked into by the Tribunal at all. Since adjudication of factual aspects are involved, it is only proper that the Tribunal considers the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging levy of excise duty on refined oil.

Analysis:
The judgment involved two Central Excise Appeals and a Writ Petition challenging the levy of excise duty on refined oil. The Revenue argued that the assessees purchase and import used oil to refine it for sale as lubricating oil. The Tribunal's decision was based on pre-amendment rulings and notes in the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal referred to past cases, including those upheld by the Supreme Court, which were rendered before the amendments to the Act. The Revenue contended that these decisions did not consider the post-amendment changes to the Act.

The judgment highlighted Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines "manufacturer." The Chapter notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act were amended to include Note '9,' stating that certain processes for lubricating oils amount to 'manufacture.' The Tribunal did not consider these amendments while making its decision. The assessees argued that they produced rerefined oil, not lubricating oil, as claimed by the Revenue. The product, 'Jeezol,' was considered a base oil, not suitable for direct use as lubricating oil. The Tribunal noted that the assessees marketed only 'Jeezol' and supplied it to various consumers without differentiating between lubricating oil and base oil.

The judgment concluded by setting aside the Tribunal's decision and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. It was deemed essential for the Tribunal to reevaluate the issue in light of the statutory provisions, including the post-amendment changes. Additionally, in the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought a waiver of deposit for appeal consideration, which was granted due to the pending nature of the case. The individual assessees were instructed to present factual details before the Tribunal for a comprehensive review considering both factual and legal aspects. The Appeals and the Writ Petition were allowed without costs.