Page 228 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

274 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ticularly when sample test report of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
indicating that same not usable as fuel in spark ignition engine. [paras 2, 7, 8]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Dhar Cement Ltd. — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 411 (S.C.) — Referred .............................. [Para 3]
Jagdamba Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (163) E.L.T. 88 (Tribunal) — Referred .. [Para 4]
Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (254) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) — Referred ........... [Para 4]
Shriram Petroleum Industries v. Commissioner — 2010 (255) E.L.T. 317 (Tribunal) — Referred . [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ajay Kumar, ADC (AR), for the Appellant.
Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : D.M. Misra, Member (J)]. - These two appeals are filed by
the Revenue against respective Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner
of Central Excise, Pune-II.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents are en-
gaged in the manufacture of Industrial Solvents used in Paints/Rubber, etc., fall-
ing under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said industrial
solvents were manufactured by the respondent’s undertaking fractional distilla-
tion of naphtha. The first cut of distillate was to obtain low boiling points range,
which is sold by them under product name ‘SL-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 ap-
propriate 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 sub-heading 2710.13 as ‘motor spirit’. Since classification of the said
product was alleged to be 2710.13, the appellant were accordingly not eligible to
the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 for captive consump-
tion of the said goods. In all total four show cause notices were issued to the re-
spondents, subject matter of the present two appeals, for the period from Octo-
ber, 1997 to February, 2005. The first show cause notice for the period October,
1997 to May, 2002, was initially confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Ag-
grieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal and
vide order dated 15-9-2003 the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating
authority with a direction to furnish details of the comparable goods of other
manufacturers to the appellant and also to ascertain whether the product in
question satisfy both the criteria for motor spirit, that is flash point as well as its
suitability for use as ‘fuel’ since satisfaction of the condition of flash point criteri-
on, alone is not sufficient. In the de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority
sent samples of the intermediate products for testing to M/s. Hindustan Petrole-
um Corporation Limited, who, vide letter dated 18-11-2005 after carrying out
necessary tests reported that the samples were not suitable for use as 'fuel' in
spark ignition engine. By their further letter dated 25-11-2011, it is reported that
the samples also did not satisfy the requirement of ‘motor spirit’ in admixture
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  244