9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cify the criteria of motor spirit as BIS 2796-2000 and hence is not suitable for use as fuel in the spark ignition engine. Since the said report dated 18-11-2005 did not furnish as to whether the goods in question could be used as motor spirit in admixture with other substance, the information was called for on the said issue. In its report dated 25-11-2005, it has been clarified that even with the additive, the samples cannot be considered as motor spirit. Even though the department has furnished invoice of GAIL and classification list of M/s. Atlas Petrochemicals, since they did not provide the necessary test results of the said product and established that as to why the impugned products of the respondent are comparable with the products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1' as such, without blending with any additives on payment of appropriate duty. The appellant also undertook further distillation over and above the boiling point range of first distillate and obtained second and third cut of distillate at different boiling points range, which were blended further with additives. These blended products were sold under product name 'SL-2' classifying the same under chapter sub-heading 2710.99 and 'SL-11' classifying the same under Tariff Heading [2710.30] on payment of appropriate duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that intermediate products, namely, second cut distillate and residue which were blended to obtain the solvent SL-2 and SL-11 are liable to excise duty under chapter su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of 'motor spirit' in admixture with the permissible additives. Also, the department could not furnish any details of alleged comparable goods of M/s. Atlas Petrochemicals and M/s. Ram Remedies even though specifically directed by the Tribunal in its order dated 15-9-2003. Consequently, the Commissioner on the basis of test report, dropped the proceedings against the respondents by its order dated 27-2-2006 which is subject matter of the Appeal No. E/510/2007. The subsequent three show cause notices were issued for the period January, 2002 to February, 2005 dropped by order dated 30-3-2006 (subject matter of the Appeal No. E/733/2007). Hence, the present appeals. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le either by themselves or in admixture with other substance for use as fuel for spark ignition engine, hence did not satisfy the second test for classification of the product under Chapter sub-heading 2710.13. He has submitted that the issue is now settled in favour of the respondent in the following cases :- (i) Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik [2010 (254) E.L.T. 170 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. (ii) Shriram Petroleum Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik [2010 (255) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (iii) Jagdamba Petroleum P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2004 (163) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Del.)] 5. It is their contention that the intermediate products are not classifiable under tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dies have not been made available to the appellants. Similarly, comparative chart showing the difference between the impugned goods and goods manufactured by M/s. G.A.I.L. showing both products to be different was also not produced by the appellants before the Adjudicating Commissioner. Keeping in view the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration after furnishing details of the comparable goods to the appellants and after taking into consideration the comparative chart and other documents produced by the appellants apart from testing the impugned products for its suitability for classification under sub-heading No. 2710.13. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for re-adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee are also marketable as motor spirit. Consequently, the Commissioner has decided to issue in favour of the respondent. We find that the department has not challenged the said test report by sending it to some other independent laboratory nor could able to establish that the second criteria of the classification of the impugned goods as 'motor spirit' as observed by the Tribunal in its order dated 15-9-2003 has been satisfied in the present case. Therefore, in absence of any contrary report indicating that the impugned product would be used as fuel in spark ignition engine, the product cannot be classifiable under chapter sub-heading 2710.13 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In these circumstances, we do not find any discrepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
