2019 (5) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of Mixed Fuel Oil - whether the Mixed Fuel Oil is classified as Motor Spirit under heading 2710 19 90? - HELD THAT - On identical facts and the legal issue involved in the present case has already been considered by this Tribunal in the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel in the case of M/S GAIL (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS C.C.E S.T. VADODARA-II (VICE-VERSA) 2019 (1) TMI 174 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that Revenue has not produced the necessary evidence to classify the product as motor spirit falling under heading 2710.99 (prior to 31.03.2005) and under tariff Heading 2710 19 90 (after 31.03.2005). The identical issue involved in the case has been decided in the favour of assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of Mixed Fuel Oil as Motor Spirit under heading 2710 19 90.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the issue of whether Mixed Fuel Oil should be classified as Motor Spirit under heading 2710 19 90. The appellant, represented by Shri Dhawal Shah, argued that the issue had already been settled in a previous Tribunal order concerning Gail (India) Ltd. The appellant referenced another case that further supported their position. On the other hand, Shri T.G. Rathod, representing the respondent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and a review of the records, the Tribunal found that the legal issue and facts in the present case were identical to those in the previous judgments cited by the appellant. The Tribunal referenced a specific case reported in 2019 (1) TMI 174-CESTAT AHMEDABAD, where it was observed that for a product to qualify as "suitable of use as motor spirit," it needed to be tested in admixture with substances other than mineral oil. The Tribunal noted that the product in question had not been tested for its suitability in admixture with any substance other than mineral oil, as required by previous decisions. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the revenue had not provided sufficient evidence to classify the product as motor spirit under the relevant tariff headings. Therefore, the demand of duty and the proposed change of classification by the revenue were deemed unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant based on the precedent set in previous cases and the lack of evidence provided by the revenue to support the classification of Mixed Fuel Oil as Motor Spirit under the specified tariff headings. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.