Central Excise Duty Cannot Apply HSD or MS Rates on Mixed SKO Under Technical Standards Rule

The CESTAT Mumbai held that central excise duty cannot be levied on the intermix of SKO with HSD or MS at the rates applicable to HSD or MS, as the mixed product does not meet the technical specifications and BIS standards required for classification as HSD or MS. The appellants cleared SKO, HSD, and MS separately, and the incidental mixing during pipeline supply does not alter classification or valuation. The Tribunal relied on precedent where duty on the interface quantity of SKO was not demanded at HSD or MS rates. The impugned order confirming demands and penalties against the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether Central Excise duty is payable on the intermingled Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) with High-Speed Diesel (HSD) or Motor Spirit (MS) at the higher rate applicable to HSD/MS instead of SKO.Whether the intermixing of SKO with HSD/MS during pipeline transportation amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Whether the Board Circular dated 22.04.2002 can be relied upon to demand duty on intermix SKO at the rates applicable to HSD/MS.Whether penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable in the facts of the case.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The appellants are not liable to pay Central Excise duty on the intermingled SKO at the higher duty rates applicable to HSD/MS, as the intermix SKO does not fulfill the technical specifications or classification criteria of HSD or MS under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The intermixing of SKO with HSD/MS during pipeline transportation does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the goods involved are not specified under the Third Schedule and the process is incidental to transportation, not a manufacturing process.The Board Circular dated 22.04.2002 cannot override or create statutory provisions and thus cannot be applied to demand duty on intermix SKO at HSD/MS rates; the Circular lacks statutory backing and is not binding on the assessee.The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 is not sustainable in the absence of a legally valid duty demand.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly Sections 2(f), 3, and 4, and the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, to determine the classification and valuation of excisable goods. It emphasized that duty is leviable on manufacture or production of goods classified distinctly under the First Schedule, and no provision allows charging duty at different rates on the same goods.The Court relied on the technical definitions and BIS standards for HSD, MS, and SKO, finding no evidence that the intermix SKO possesses characteristics qualifying it as HSD or MS, precluding classification under those headings for higher duty.The Court referred to precedent decisions, including a Tribunal ruling and its subsequent affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that the Board Circular cannot alter or supersede statutory provisions and that duty must be paid on transaction value at removal, not on an assumed classification based on intermixing.The Court noted that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by treating the intermixing as manufacture under clause (iii) of Section 2(f), which applies only to goods specified in the Third Schedule, which was not the case here.The decision reflects adherence to the principle that administrative circulars cannot create new liabilities absent statutory authority and that classification and valuation must be grounded in law and technical standards.

---