Page 251 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX., PATNA 137

dervaluation the Commissioner has correctly dropped the duty demand. The
department failed to rebut or controverted the various findings as recorded by
Ld. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order and therefore same is required
to be upheld.
17. In view of above, we allow the appeals in respect of appellants and
dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
(Pronounced in Court on 10-4-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 137 (Tri. - Kolkata)

IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) and V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX., PATNA
Final Order No. FO/75442/2019, dated 15-1-2019 in Appeal No. E/518/2009
1
Manufacture - Blending Motor Spirit (MS) and HSD with small quan-
tity of multifunctional additives to make branded MS/HSD - Issue no longer
res integra having been decided in number of cases holding that blending ibid
merely improves quality of MS/HSD and there was no change in characteris-
tics, usage and ISI specifications of these products - No stay has been granted
against these decisions - Case law relied by Revenue not applicable as same
pertained to exemption notification - Impugned order not sustainable as activi-
ty not amounting to manufacture - Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
[paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (295) E.L.T. 106 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................. [Paras 7, 8]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 950 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................. [Paras 7, 8]
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (234) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 6, 9]
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn .Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .................................................................................................................................. [Paras 7, 8]
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — Order No. A/324/Cal/01, dated 24-5-2001
by CESTAT, Kolkata — Distinguished ............................................................................... [Paras 7, 11]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : P.K. Choudhary, Member (J)]. - The present appeal is
against an Order-in-Original No. 14/MP/COMMISSIONER/2009, dated June 30,
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A27
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  299