1989 (3) TMI 132 - SC - Central Excise

Hydrogenated rice bran oil not 'manufacture'; classified as vegetable non-essential oil under Item 12, not residuary Item 68

SC held that hydrogenated rice bran oil does not amount to a new commercially distinct product and therefore the process of hydrogenation does not ... Process of manufacture - identity and essential character of goods - classification under Tariff Item 12 CET (vegetable non-essential oils) - residuary classification under Tariff Item 68 CET (goods not specified elsewhere) - specific tariff entry prevailing over residuary entry - hydrogenation not transforming oil into a new product for classification purposesProcess of manufacture - identity and essential character of goods - classification under Tariff Item 12 CET (vegetable non-essential oils) - residuary classification under Tariff Item 68 CET (goods not specified elsewhere) - specific tariff entry prevailing over residuary entry - Whether extra hardened (hydrogenated) rice bran oil becomes a new product by manufacture and is therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 CET, or whether it retains the essential character of an oil and remains classifiable under Tariff Item 12 CET. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that although hydrogenation is a process, not every process amounts to a manufacture that changes the identity, use and essential character of the goods. The determinative test is whether the process produces a new identifiable article in market parlance with altered essential characteristics. On the facts, extra hardening (raising melting point to about 45oC or more) renders the oil non edible and suited for industrial uses such as soap making, but does not alter its origin or essential nature as an oil. The Court applied the principle from Tungabhadra Industrial Ltd.'s case that hydrogenation which renders an oil more stable does not convert it into a different commodity if it retains the two essential attributes (origin from the vegetable source and being an oil in essential character). The Court also observed that Item 12 expressly covers 'vegetable non essential oils, all sorts', and the phrase 'all sorts' encompasses hydrogenated or hardened oils; therefore a specific entry (Item 12) must be preferred to a residuary entry (Item 68). The Tribunal had evaluated the technical production, market parlance and uses, and correctly concluded that extra hardened rice bran oil remains within Item 12 rather than Item 68. The Tribunal's conclusion that the hardened technical oil is akin to and unaltered in essential character from the oil from which it is made was upheld. [Paras 16, 17, 21, 22, 23]Extra hardened (hydrogenated) rice bran oil does not become a new product for classification under Item 68; it retains the essential character of oil and is classifiable under Tariff Item 12 CET, and the Tribunal's conclusion to that effect is upheld.Final Conclusion: Both appeals dismissed; the Tribunal correctly held that extra hardened hydrogenated rice bran oil retains its essential character as an oil and is classifiable under Tariff Item 12 CET rather than under the residuary Item 68 CET. Issues Involved:1. Classification of hydrogenated rice bran oil under the Central Excise Tariff.2. Whether hydrogenation constitutes a manufacturing process that creates a new product.3. Applicability of Tariff Item 12 versus Tariff Item 68 CET.4. Interpretation of 'vegetable non-essential oils' and 'vegetable products' under the CET.5. Legal precedents and principles relevant to the classification of hydrogenated oils.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Hydrogenated Rice Bran Oil under the Central Excise Tariff:The primary issue was whether hydrogenated rice bran oil should be classified under Tariff Item 12 or Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Assistant Collector initially classified it under Item 68, considering it a new product with distinct characteristics. However, the Appellate Collector and subsequently the CEGAT classified it under Item 12, treating it as a vegetable non-essential oil despite its hardened state.2. Whether Hydrogenation Constitutes a Manufacturing Process that Creates a New Product:The Court examined whether the hydrogenation process, which transforms rice bran oil into a semi-solid state with a higher melting point, constitutes a manufacturing process that results in a new product. The Court noted, 'Indubitably hydrogenation of rice bran oil is a process. But all processes need not be manufacture.' The process must change the identity, use, and purpose of the goods to be considered manufacturing. The Court concluded that hydrogenated rice bran oil, despite being hardened, did not lose its essential characteristics as oil.3. Applicability of Tariff Item 12 versus Tariff Item 68 CET:The Court analyzed the applicability of Tariff Item 12, which covers 'vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts,' and Tariff Item 68, a residuary item for goods not specified elsewhere. The Court observed that 'a more specific item should be preferred to one less so,' and since Item 12 specifically covers vegetable oils, including hardened forms, it was more appropriate than the residuary Item 68. The Court stated, 'Item 12 is more specific than Item 68, for all hardened technical oil not fit for human consumption and such would cover under this category.'4. Interpretation of 'Vegetable Non-Essential Oils' and 'Vegetable Products' under the CET:The Court referred to the definitions in the CET, where Item 12 covers 'vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts,' and Item 13 covers 'vegetable products' hardened for human consumption. The Court emphasized that the hydrogenated rice bran oil, being unfit for human consumption, did not fall under Item 13 but remained under Item 12. The Court cited the case of Tungabhadra Industrial Ltd., which held that hydrogenated oil retains its essential nature as oil, supporting the classification under Item 12.5. Legal Precedents and Principles Relevant to the Classification of Hydrogenated Oils:The Court relied on several precedents, including Tungabhadra Industrial Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer, which held that hydrogenated oil remains oil despite the process it undergoes. The Court also referred to Champaklal v. State of Gujarat, which stated that oil retains its essential properties even after processing. These precedents reinforced the view that hydrogenated rice bran oil should be classified under Item 12.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the CEGAT's decision, affirming that hydrogenated rice bran oil falls under Tariff Item 12 CET as 'vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts,' and not under the residuary Item 68. The Court concluded that the process of hydrogenation did not transform the oil into a new product but merely altered its physical state. The Tribunal's decision was found to be correct, considering all relevant factors and legal principles. Both appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.