9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso been imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. Penalty of Rs.10 lakhs has been imposed on Managing Director and land, buildings, plant and machinery have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs. The appellants are challenging this order, which has been issued on the ground that the petroleum hydrocarbon solvents manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2710.19 of First Schedule to CETA, 1985 ('Tariff' for short). 2. Shri J.C. Patel, learned advocate on behalf of the appellants, submits that this is a second round of litigation. In first round, the matter was remanded by Tribunal requiring the Commissioner to re-examine the issue in the light of the decision of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of officers' visit to the factory. Learned Advocate relied upon the several decisions of the Tribunal in support of his contention that unless the product is tested, to examine its suitability for use in spark ignition engine as required in the definition of motor sprit in the tariff, the product manufactured by the appellant could not have been classified and made liable to duty as held by the Commissioner. Since the appeal can be decided on this account alone, we are not going to the other grounds and arguments advanced by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. 3. In the remand order, Tribunal had observed as under: "4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that there is no finding b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The opinion of CTSM of IOCL Vadodara is also not conclusive since he himself has clarified that from the given distillation range of solvents, it appears that these solvents can be blended with other petroleum streams to meet the specifications for motor spirit. This cannot be considered as conclusive opinion. Further, Tribunal in case of M/s. Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 201 (Tri.), had held relying on U.S. Customs case that the term 'suitable for use' means actually, practically and commercially fit for such use and not casually incidental or possible use. In view of the above, Commissioner's reliance upon the opinion of CTSM cannot be held appropriate. In the absence of specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
