1990 (12) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants entitled to concessional duty rate under Notification No. 44/71-CE for HVI spindle oil.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 44/71-CE for their HVI spindle oil. The ... Demand - HVI spindle oil - use in the manufacture of agricultural spray oil - application of exemption notification - Held that: if the Government intended to withdraw the earlier Notification then they would have rescinded or amended or issued the subsequent Notification in supersession of earlier Notification as the Government has not done so, the benefit of Notification cannot be denied to the appellants in this case.Better exemption cannot be denied to the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 44/71-CE for concessional duty on HVI spindle oil.2. Interpretation of subsequent Notification No. 44/78-CE and its impact on the earlier notification.3. Determination of the correct rate of duty and eligibility for exemption under the relevant notifications.Issue 1: Applicability of Notification No. 44/71-CE for Concessional Duty on HVI Spindle OilThe appellants argued that Notification No. 44/71-CE, dated 7-4-1971, as amended by Notification No. 41/82-CE, dated 28-2-1982, should apply to their product, HVI spindle oil, which is used in the manufacture of agricultural spray oil. They contended that their product met all the specifications and conditions stipulated in the notification, including the requirements related to flashing point, flame height, bituminous substance content, viscosity, and usage restrictions. The Assistant Collector's test report confirmed that the HVI spindle oil satisfied these conditions, and the product was being cleared under Chapter X procedure for the intended use.Issue 2: Interpretation of Subsequent Notification No. 44/78-CE and Its Impact on the Earlier NotificationThe respondents argued that Notification No. 44/78-CE, dated 1-3-1978, specifically mentioned spindle HVI oil and provided a different concessional rate of duty. They contended that this notification should take precedence over the earlier, more general Notification No. 44/71-CE. However, the appellants maintained that the earlier notification, which provided a lower rate of duty, should still apply as their product met the required specifications. They cited several legal precedents to support their argument that when two notifications are in force simultaneously, the one more beneficial to the assessee should be applied.Issue 3: Determination of the Correct Rate of Duty and Eligibility for Exemption Under the Relevant NotificationsThe Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents presented by both parties. It noted that the Assistant Collector had provisionally approved the classification list for HVI spindle oil at the concessional rate under Notification No. 44/71-CE, pending clarification from higher authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the language of the notification should be strictly construed and that the intention of the legislature should be gathered from the language employed. The Tribunal found that the appellants' product met the conditions of the earlier notification and that there was no justification for denying the benefit of the lower rate of duty provided therein.The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 44/71-CE. It held that if the government had intended to withdraw the earlier notification, it would have done so explicitly. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the lower rate of duty as per Notification No. 44/71-CE.Separate Judgment Delivered by Member (T):The Member (T) agreed with the conclusions of the learned brother Member (J) but added that each exemption notification is a piece of subordinate legislation and should be interpreted independently unless there is a cross-reference. The Member (T) emphasized that the two notifications should not be read together unless explicitly stated. The Member (T) also highlighted that the appellants should have the option to choose the more beneficial exemption, and any ambiguity in the notification should be resolved in favor of the assessee.