9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing on 24-2-1983. 2. The appeal relates to demands raised on intermediate reduced crude/residuary oils consumed inside the appellants refinery at Barauni, as fuel for the production of other finished petroleum products during 1966 and 1967. At the relevant time exemption in terms of Notification No. 74-C.E., dated 18-5-1963 was available only in respect of mineral oils falling under Item 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, namely petroleum products N.O.S. . The reduced crude used by the appellants as fuel within the refinery was subjected to chemical test from time to time and exemption under the notification allowed subject to the test confirming that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item 11A. On certain occasions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff. According to him, if the oils had been tested in accordance with these specifications, they would not have fulfilled those specifications and would, therefore, have been held as not falling within Tariff Items 8, 9 and 10. 6. Shri Prasad also drew attention to a letter of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (letter F. No. 8/27/65-CX. III, dated 11-10-1965) in which it was stated that the question of levy of Excise duty would not arise if the intermediate products though conforming to certain chemical tests were not marketable. 7. Shri Prasad made a further point that in terms of Explanation I to Tariff Item 6, which has also been incorporated by reference to Items 8, 9 and 10, a mineral oil must co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should also be determined, but this was not necessary, as it was not one of the criteria included in the specifications laid down in the respective Tariff Items. 9. As regards the Board s letter dated 11-10-1965 referred to by Shri Prasad, Smt. Zutshi argued that it did not have statutory backing and was not binding on the Tribunal. As against that letter, she referred to Tariff Advice No. 15/80, dated 19-4-1980 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, in which it was stated that topped crude would fall under different Items depending on its specifications . Finally, she argued that fiscal laws had to be interpreted in accordance with their wording, and cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indo-European Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the test results as incorrect. What they are challenging is in fact the definitions incorporated in the Central Excise Tariff. We do not think it is open to us to go outside the scope of these definitions. So long as the chemical test showed any quantity of the reduced crude as coming within the definitions of specifications incorporated in Items 8, 9 or 10 of the Central Excise Tariff, and so long as these test results themselves have not been challenged, the Excise authorities were right in treating them as falling within the applicable Tariff Items and therefore as ineligible for the exemption, which only covered products falling under the residuary Item No. 11A. We also agree that the Board s instructions of 1965 referred to by Shri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
