9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had classified their said products ARH-C-Oil under Chapter sub-heading 2709000 as Petroleum Oils which is chargeable to NIL rate of duty. It is alleged in Show Cause notices on the basis of manufacturing process and test result of the products that ARH-C oil obtained from Regional Laboratory, Vadodara, the product ARCH-C oil is not Crude Mineral Hydrocarbon oil but it is derivative of Petroleum Crude Oil, which is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 27101990 of Central Excise Tariff and attracting duty. Therefore, the assessee has been issued three Show Cause Notices covering the period from August 2006 to March 2007 for demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,41,21,990/-. The Adjudicating authority, confirmed the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the Appellant are once again before this Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel Shri Willingdon Christian appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that Ld. Commissioner has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the manufacturing process explained by the Appellant. The Manufacturing process carried out by the Appellant also reflected in para 4 of Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2007. By the plain reading of the manufacturing process, it is coming quite crystal that the whole manufacturing process is divided into two parts, i.e. decantation and distillation /blending. The first part i.e. decantation, is for the entire quantity of crude oil, by which water content in the bought out crude oil is removed by simple decantation. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the grave error by placing unflinching reliance on the test report given by the Dr. G.P. Sharma without even considering the Appellants specific request for cross-examination of Dr. G.P. Sharma. Ld. Commissioner also ignored favorable test report obtained by the DGCEI from the Central Excise & Customs Laboratory. As per this DGCEI investigation, the Chemical Examiner has categorical reported that the disputed product is Composed of Crude Minerals Hydrocarbon Oil. In facts, at the instance of the Chemical Examiner, the disputed product was also sent for further testing by professional laboratory accredited by the Government, namely M/s Caleb Brett India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. In this report by the outside professional laboratory, it is categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ylic Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs CC - 2003 (153)ELT 276(SC). Where in the matter of classification dispute, when two opinions are possible, the assessee should be given the benefit of doubt and the opinion favorable to the assessee should be given effect to. He relies upon the following judgment in support of this view * Poulose and Mathen Vs. CCE - 1997 (90) ELT 264 (SC) * Pioneer Embroidery Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2011 (273) ELT 257 (T), 2014(229)ELTA146(SC). * 2007(80) RLT 3917 (CESTAT) CC Vs. Adarsh Woolen Industries. * 1996 (87) ELT 580 (SC) -CC Vs. Lotus Inks 2.5 He also argued that the test result of the professional laboratory, namely M/s Caleb Brett India Pvt. Ltd. in the present case, should be given preference over the Test Result of CRCL, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present matter is classification of ARH-C Crude Oil manufactured by the Appellant from raw material (commingled crude oil). The department has classified the same under Chapter heading 27101990of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which covers Petroleum Oils and Oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than Crude. This heading further expands and states preparation not elsewhere specified or included, containing by weight 70% or more of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals. Whereas the appellant claimed the classification under Chapter heading 27090000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. That both the test report have given the opinion that the product is belonging to the category of Crude Oil. The said reports were in favour of Appellant. 4.3 In the present matter the test reports of product given by Dr. G.P. Sharma is in favour of the Revenue and test reports of product given by Dr. T.A. Sreenivasa Rao were against the Revenue. We also find that during the personal hearing before the Adjudicating authority the counsel for the Appellant submits that since the matter has been examined in depth by the DGCEI and they have got another test report from other private reputed private laboratory, there may not be any further point to cross examine the Chemical Examiners from his point of view. However, if the adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
