9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was found that the melting point of the sample was 54 degree `C , thus not being fit for human consumption and that when mixed with other oil it could be used for human consumption after proper processing. The appellants made further representations but the Excise authorities maintained that the product was classifiable under T.I. 13. The appellants cleared the product under T.I. 13 by paying duty under protest. It further appears that the appellants disagreeing with the classification sought permission of the Range Superintendent to clear the product under provisional assessment under T.I. 12 of the Central Excise Tariff after executing necessary bond. This request was conceded by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and the appellants were called to clear the goods under T.I. 12. The appellants then filed appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay claiming the product should be classified under T.I. 12 and not under T.I. 13 or Tariff Item 68. The Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 17-12-1979 held that the product could not be classified under T.I. 12 or Item 13 of the CET. He thus partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Hard Oil i.e. H.T.O. should fall under T.I. No. 12 of the Central Excise Tariff i.e. Vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts. Shri Mehta in support of his contentions relied on M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, 1961 SCR 14 (a photostat copy supplied by the Appellants), Union of India Ors. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Ors., 1977 E.L.T. (J 199) (Supreme Court), Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Another v. Union of India, 1981 E.L.T. 478 (Madras), Jalal Plastic Industries Ors. v. Union of India Ors., 1981 E.L.T. 653 (Gujarat), Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India Ors., 1980 E.L.T. 521 (Delhi). 5. On behalf of the respondent Collector, Smt. Vijay Zutshi, S.D.R. submitted that HTO is well recognised in the trade as a commodity distinct from Vegetable Oils. The Hardened oils can be put only to certain specific industrial uses. They have a distinct name, character and uses. They cannot be classified under Tariff Item No. 12 of the C.E.T. and can be classified only under Residuary Item 68. In support of her arguments, she relied on Navasari Oil Products Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Central Excise Customs, Navasari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in that case the applicability of T.I. No. 12 was not considered because it was not a competing item in the case. Tariff Items considered were T.I. Nos. 13 68. About the two Government of India decisions, he submitted that they were not binding on the Tribunal and that they were not based on correct appreciation of law. 8. It is true that Gujarat High Court did not specifically consider Tariff Item No. 12, but when it said that Super-hardened oil not fit for human con- sumption was not classifiable under Item 13 and there being no other specific Tariff Item under which it could be classified would fall under Residuary Item T.I. 68, it must be held that the High Court excluded the applicability of Tariff Item No. 12 to the product. 9. The Government of India s decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. (Supra) is a case directly in point. The case had noticed Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool (Supra) relied on by Shri Mehta before us and distinguished the same. In doing so, (para 6 of the order) they referred to and relied on observations of House of Lord in Macbeth Co. v. Chislett, (1910) (A.C. 220 at page 223) cited with approval by the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that Extra Hardened Technical Oil (Palm Oil) not fit for human consumption is recognised as a commodity distinct from vegetable non-essential oils. It has a distinct name, character and use. It cannot be classified under T.I. 12 and can be classified only under T.I. 68 of the CET. In this view of the matter two orders of Collectors classifying the product under T.I. 12 on which the appellants relied in support of their arguments cannot be accepted and do not help the appellants. 10. In the result, the order of the lower appellate authority ordering classification of `Extra Hardened Technical Oil (HTO) not fit for human consumptions under T.I. No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under T.I. No. 12 of C.E.T., calls for no interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. EDITOR S COMMENTS. The judicial as well as quasi-judicial authorities at all levels are bound to follow their own precedents. The legal position in this respect has been clarified by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mercantile Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs [1978 E.L.T. (J 552)], wherein it has been held that the authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are boun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
