9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R) for the Revenue. ORDER The issue involved in the present case is that whether the conversion of waste oil/ sludge into reclaimed fuel oil/re-refining used oil amounts to manufacture as per Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting Central Excise duty or otherwise. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, the same issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide order No. A/10908-10909/2022 dated 02.08.2022. Therefore, he requests that following the earlier order, this appeal may be allowed. 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made both the sides and perused the record. We find that in the present case, the demand is for the subsequent period whereas on the same issue for the earlier period the case has been decided in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal order dated 02.08.2022 wherein the following order was passed:- 5 . We have car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has come into existence consequent to the process undertaken by the appellant. The Oil contents are not consumed during the process of recycling and the Oil remains oil only. We also observed that the process discussed by the Ld. Commissioner in this context only cleaning process is undertaken on the waste/ sludge oil and used Oil and the Oil contents remains as it is during the process. The Oil is separated from the impurities and no process is done to obtain material other than Oil. In the present case it cannot be said that a new and distinct commodity has come into existence consequent to the process undertaken by the Appellant. 5.2 We find that an identical issue was before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chennai-I vs. Metropolitan Transport Company 2008 (224) E.L.T. 603 (supra). We find that the ratio in the said decision is squarely applicable in this case also. We may reproduce the same: We find that the process in question (reclamation of usable lubricating oil from used (waste) lubricating oil is very much comparable to reclamation of usable transformer oil from used (waste) transformer oil. In the case of Mineral Oil Corporation (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter Note 4 to any goods for examining, whether, manufacture has taken place, it is essential to establish (i) either there is labelling or re-labelling of containers, (ii) there is re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs (iii) such treatments is adopted, so that product is rendered marketable to consumer. From the show cause notice and relied upon documents of show cause notices, we do not find that Revenue could establish that the goods emerged after removal of impurities from waste oil have been marketed to consumer. We also noticed that nowhere on the website of the Appellant has mentioned that the product is original, they have described it as recycled or re-refined products only. There is nothing in the marketing which changes characteristics or usage of the recycled waste oil. Further, there was no evidence of labelling or relabelling or for re-packing into retail packs. It is admitted facts that the Appellant have only undertaken purification process on Waste Oil/Sludge and Used Oil and have not undertaken the processes mentioned in the said Note 4. Moreover the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is applicable in the case of Lubricant Oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1944. Once it is held that the activity is not manufacture all he demands including duty, interest, penalties and personal penalty in the impugned shall not sustain on merit. 5.9 The appellant have also raised the issue on limitation that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable as there is no suppression of fact. We also find that the contention of the appellant as regard the demand being time bar is correct. On the careful scrutiny of the records and submission made by the appellant we find that in November 2008, the Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 28.11.2008 called for information from the Appellant regarding the import of Sludge Oil/Waste Oil and process undertaken by the Appellant in respect of the Waste Oil/ Sludge Oil and the value of clearance for the period from 2004 to 2008-09. The Appellant provided the said information and details by letter dated 22.12.2008. The Appellant s stand that processes did not amount to manufacture and no excise duty was payable, was accepted by the department and no show cause notice demanding duty was issued during the said period. By letter dated 13.12.2010 addressed to the Customs Houses and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
