TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal classifies 'Servo Steerol C-6' as lubricating prep, grants duty exemption</h1> <h3>M/s INDIAN OIL BLENDING LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> M/s INDIAN OIL BLENDING LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 158 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:Classification of product under Central Excise tariff act, eligibility for exemption notification, categorization as lubricating preparation or speciality oil.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of ProductThe appeal revolves around the appellant's classification of their product 'Servo Steerol C-6' under chapter sub-heading 3403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant claimed the product to be a lubricating preparation eligible for a concessional rate of duty under an exemption notification. The revenue, however, alleged the product to be a speciality oil used in rolling mills, not qualifying as a lubricating preparation.Issue 2: Eligibility for Exemption NotificationThe dispute primarily concerns the eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No.12/94-CE dated 01.03.1994, as amended by Notification No.14/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. The appellant argued that their product falls under the category of lubricating preparations, thus qualifying for the concessional rate of duty. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the product is a speciality oil and does not meet the criteria for the exemption.Issue 3: Categorization as Lubricating Preparation or Speciality OilThe crux of the matter lies in determining whether the product 'Servo Steerol C-6' should be classified as a lubricating preparation or a speciality oil. The appellant emphasized that the product's use, as described in their literature, demonstrates its function as a lubricating preparation. They argued that the product's characteristics align with the definition of lubricating preparations as per the Harmonized System Nomenclature (HSN). The revenue, however, relied on past circulars and notifications to categorize the product as a speciality oil.In the judgment, the Tribunal scrutinized the product's composition, functions, and usage to ascertain its classification. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the product indeed qualifies as a lubricating preparation based on the definition provided in the HSN. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under the relevant exemption notification.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, declaring it devoid of merit, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The detailed analysis of the product's characteristics and the legal interpretations led to the decision in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of accurate classification and eligibility for exemption notifications in excise matters.
TaxTMI 