9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1168 - AT - Central ExciseImposition of oil cess and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) education cess(EC) secondary and higher secondary education cess(SHE) - Condensate which emerges out during the processing of natural gas in their gas plant - Held that - The oil cess in terms of Section 15 of OIDA is required to be collected as duty of excise as per the rate the specified item in the schedule. As per the Act the provision of Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 and Rules made there under including those relating to refunds and exemption from duty cess as far as may be applied in relation to levy and collection of duty of excise leviable under this Section and for this the provision of that Act shall have affect as if that Act provided for the levy of duty of Excise on all items specified in the schedule. It is evident that condensate is obtained and received from natural gas processing plant as a by-product where the manufacturing of the aforesaid condensate was never intended thus this question of classification and payment of cess in the form of duty of excise is not leviable although the Adjudicating Authority has referred to Section 2 (f) and 2 (d) of Central Excise Act to claim of imposition of oil cess on the condensate as a manufactured product. Time limitation - Held that - In this case the Show Cause Notice is issued under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Act thus the demand is time barred as no extended period of limitation has been invoked in the Show Cause Notice dated 25.3.2015. The Show Cause Notice invoked the provisions of Section 11 A(1) of Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 15 of Oil Industries Development Act - the demand is time barred. The oil cess is not leviable on the condensate and under OIDA either on merits or also on limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of oil cess and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), education cess (EC), secondary and higher secondary education cess (SHE) on "Condensate." 2. Classification of "Condensate" under Central Excise Tariff Act. 3. Applicability of oil cess under Section 15 of the Oil Industries (Development) Act, 1974 (OIDA). 4. Definition and characteristics of "Condensate" versus "Crude Oil." 5. Reliance on definitions and previous case laws by the Commissioner. 6. Time-barred demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Oil Cess and Other Duties on "Condensate": The core issue is whether oil cess and other duties are applicable to "Condensate" emerging from natural gas processing. The appellant argued that "Condensate" is not subject to oil cess under Section 15 of OIDA, which only applies to crude oil and natural gas. The adjudicating authority's decision to classify "Condensate" as crude oil was challenged based on the chemical characteristics and definitions provided in various statutes. 2. Classification of "Condensate" under Central Excise Tariff Act: The appellant contended that the classification of "Condensate" under Chapter Heading 2709 00 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act is irrelevant for the purpose of levying cess under OIDA. The adjudicating authority's reliance on previous case laws pertaining to Central Excise Tariff classification was deemed misplaced as the issue at hand was about cess under OIDA. 3. Applicability of Oil Cess under Section 15 of OIDA: The Tribunal examined whether "Condensate" falls within the definition of crude oil under Section 15 of OIDA. The definition of crude oil under Section 2(e) of OIDA was scrutinized, which specifies crude oil as unrefined petroleum in its natural state from which only water and foreign substances have been extracted. The Tribunal concluded that "Condensate," containing water and foreign substances, does not meet this definition. 4. Definition and Characteristics of "Condensate" versus "Crude Oil": The Tribunal compared the chemical characteristics of "Condensate" and crude oil, noting significant differences in API gravity, specific gravity, density, kinematic viscosity, sulfur content, flash point, water content, ash content, and wax content. These differences supported the appellant's argument that "Condensate" is distinct from crude oil. 5. Reliance on Definitions and Previous Case Laws by the Commissioner: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in relying on definitions and case laws that were not directly relevant to the issue of cess under OIDA. The definitions provided by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and previous judgments related to Central Excise Tariff classification were not applicable to the interpretation of Section 15 of OIDA. 6. Time-barred Demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal noted that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period without invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand for the period March 2014 to October 2014 was thus deemed time-barred, further invalidating the imposition of cess and other duties. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that oil cess is not leviable on "Condensate" under OIDA, both on merits and due to the time-barred nature of the demand. The impugned demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits. The decision emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory definitions and limitations when imposing duties and cess.
|
