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>Appellate Tribunal reverses Collector's order on misclassification dispute by Indian Oil & Indian Petrochemicals.</h1> <h3>INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 134 (Tribunal) Issues involved:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-469/89 BD dated 28-2-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.Facts of the case:The case involves M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. supplying duty-paid kerosene to M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. for manufacturing Linear Alkyl Benzene or Heavy alkylate. The dispute arose when a sample from the return stream showed characteristics of Motor Spirit instead of mineral oil as required by the exemption notification. Central Excise authorities issued a notice to recover the duty lost due to the alleged downgrading of the product.Assistant Collector's Findings:The Assistant Collector found discrepancies in the test results and concluded that the return stream did not consist of motor spirit but possibly Raw Naptha. He dismissed the show cause notice issued to both Indian Oil Corporation and Indian Petrochemicals Ltd.Collector (Appeals) Order:The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order, stating that the return stream fell under Item No. 6 of the Central Excise Tariff instead of the required Items 7, 8, or 11A. The order was based on presumptions and ignored departmental test results.Appellate Tribunal Decision:The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector had correctly considered the test results and other circumstances to conclude that the return stream was not motor spirit. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to refute the contentions of the parties. It was noted that the department had only tested for flash point and not for suitability as fuel for internal combustion engines, as required by the tariff. The Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector's order was correct, set aside the Collector (Appeals) order, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 