2006 (8) TMI 42 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Waste oil not produced out of any manufacturing process as it emerges after the use of lubricating oil, hence not excisable

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing modvat credit on lubricating oil used in DG set and classification of waste oil under Chapter sub-heading No. 34.03.
2. Dispute regarding duty demand on waste oil drained out of DG set.
3. Interpretation of whether waste oil is a product of manufacturing process.
4. Application of relevant legal precedents to determine the classification and duty liability of waste oil.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal concerns the respondent availing modvat credit on lubricating oil used in their DG set, leading to the drainage of waste oil classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 34.03. The lower authorities issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the waste oil, contending it arises from a manufacturing process.

Issue 2: The dispute revolves around the duty demand on the waste oil drained out of the DG set by the respondent. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the grounds that waste oil does not result from a manufacturing process.

Issue 3: The crux of the matter lies in determining whether the waste oil drained out of the DG set constitutes a product of a manufacturing process. The revenue argues that the waste oil is a by-product of the manufacturing activity, while the respondent contests this claim.

Issue 4: The authorized representative for the respondent cites legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support their argument that waste oil does not qualify as a product of manufacturing. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions and perusing the records, finds merit in the respondent's argument based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal dismisses the revenue's appeal, citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries. The Tribunal concludes that the waste oil drained out of the DG set does not fall under the dutiable classification as claimed by the revenue, thereby ruling in favor of the respondent based on established legal principles and precedents.