2019 (6) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounting to manufacture or not - blending of MS and HSD with small quantity of multi-functional additives to make branded MS and HSD respectively - HELD THAT - Just because blending improves their quality and after blending they are sold under different brand names, the MS and HSD received from IOCL do not become products different from unblended MS/HSD, with different characteristics and usages. Their characteristics remain the same, as they both have to conform to ISI specifications for unblended MS/HSD and their usage also remain the same. As such, there being no manufacture within the meaning of the Act, no excise duty is payable on the said blended MS/HSD. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Whether blending of MS and HSD with multi-functional additives to make branded products amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an Order-in-Original confirming a central excise duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant for blending MS and HSD with additives to create branded products.
2. The appellant refines crude oil, purchases duty-paid MS and HSD, blends them with additives, and sells under brand names. The issue is whether this blending constitutes "manufacture" under the Act.
3. The Tribunal considered previous decisions holding that blending MS and HSD with additives does not amount to "manufacture" for excise duty purposes.
4. The Tribunal cited the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, where it was held that blending does not change the basic characteristics or usage of MS and HSD, thus not constituting "manufacture."
5. The Tribunal emphasized that blending merely improves quality without creating new products with distinct characteristics, as required for a process to be considered "manufacture."
6. Several other cases were cited where similar decisions were made in favor of oil companies blending MS and HSD.
7. The Tribunal found that the facts in previous decisions involving the appellant and the instant case were the same, leading to the application of the same legal principles.
8. The Commissioner's attempt to distinguish a previous decision was deemed erroneous, and amendments to the exemption notification did not alter the fact that blending did not amount to "manufacture."
9. The Tribunal reiterated that blending, even if enhancing quality and sold under brand names, does not change the fundamental nature of the products, thus not constituting "manufacture."
10. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's reliance on a different case involving SKO, emphasizing that in the instant case, MS and HSD already met required specifications before blending.
11. Following previous Tribunal decisions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief.