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>Supreme Court clarifies exemption criteria for Speciality oils under Notification No. 287/86-C.E.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA Versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Orders of CEGAT and the Commissioner (Appeals), and restoring the decision of the Assistant ... Whether this Notification No. 287/86-C.E., dated 5th May, 1986 exempts all Speciality oils or only certain types of Speciality oils? Held that:- All Speciality oils are not exempted under this Notification. Only those Speciality oils where the mineral oil is blended or compounded with other oils or any other substance, are exempted. This becomes further clear from a reading of the proviso. The proviso clarifies that nothing in this Notification will apply to a Speciality oil which is manufactured by blending or compounding of mineral oil falling under Chapter 27 of the Schedule. Thus, not only the explanation but the proviso makes it clear that the exemption is only to the Speciality oil which has been manufactured by blending or compounding of mineral oil (falling under Chapter 27) with other oils or any other substance. The Notification being clear and unambiguous, the opinions expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as CEGAT cannot be sustained. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as CEGAT have erroneously proceeded to base their decisions on the difference in meanings between the words 'blending' and 'compounding'. Thus, there could be 'blending or compounding' only of mineral oils falling under Chapter 27. There could also be blending or compounding of mineral oils with other oils or other substances and the explanation makes it clear that the Speciality oil exempted under this Notification is only such Speciality oil which is manufactured by blending or compounding of mineral oil with other oil or any other substance. Appeal is allowed. The impugned Order of CEGAT, as well as the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. The Order of the Assistant Collector is restored. Issues:Claim for exemption under Notification No. 287/86-C.E.Interpretation of the exemption notification for Speciality oils.Consistency in applying the exemption to Speciality oils.Appeal against previous orders regarding the same party's eligibility for exemption.Analysis:The case involves a dispute regarding the exemption claimed under Notification No. 287/86-C.E. for the manufacturing of a Speciality Oil named 'METAQUENCH-40'. The Assistant Collector disallowed the exemption claim, but the Collector (Appeals) later allowed the appeal of the Respondents. However, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dismissed the appeal of the Appellants, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.The central issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the exemption notification for Speciality oils. The Notification exempts speciality oils falling under specific categories from certain excise duties, subject to certain conditions. The key contention is whether all Speciality oils are exempted under this Notification or only specific types. The Court emphasizes that the exemption applies only to Speciality oils manufactured by blending or compounding mineral oils with other oils or substances. The explanation and proviso in the Notification clarify the scope of the exemption, indicating that not all Speciality oils are covered.A significant aspect of the judgment addresses the consistency in applying the exemption to Speciality oils. The Court highlights that previous orders in favor of the Respondents for different products do not automatically extend the same benefit to 'METAQUENCH-40'. The Court asserts that each product must be evaluated independently for eligibility under the Notification, and past decisions on unrelated products do not bind the current determination.Regarding the appeal against previous orders, the Court clarifies that decisions on other products do not preclude the Revenue from contesting the eligibility of 'METAQUENCH-40' for the exemption. The Court cites relevant case law to support the position that past orders concerning different products do not establish a blanket acceptance of exemption eligibility for all products of the same party.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allows the current appeal, setting aside the Orders of CEGAT and the Commissioner (Appeals), and restoring the decision of the Assistant Collector. The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with exemption notifications and the need for individual assessments of products for exemption eligibility, ensuring consistency and clarity in applying tax exemptions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
