Mahuwa oil exemption denied where chemical reports showed the sample was not Mahuwa oil and failed specification requirements.

Exemption under Notification No. 115/86-C.E. was denied because the chemical test reports showed that the sample was not Mahuwa oil and did not meet the prescribed Mahuwa oil specifications. The first report identified the sample as other than Mahuwa oil, and the second report recorded rechecking by the Chemical Examiner and non-conformity with the iodine value requirement under IS : 545. The objection that no retest was conducted was rejected on the basis of the record of rechecking. As the sample itself was found not to be Mahuwa oil, the question of its percentage content for claiming the notification benefit did not arise, and the demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 115/86-C.E. when the chemical test reports indicated that the sample was not Mahuwa oil and did not conform to the prescribed specifications.

Analysis: The first report described the sample as other than Mahuwa oil. The second report stated that the sample had been rechecked and did not conform to the specifications of Mahuwa oil in respect of iodine value under IS : 545. The objection that no retest was carried out was rejected because the record showed rechecking by the Chemical Examiner. Since the sample itself did not contain Mahuwa oil, no question arose of determining its percentage content for claiming the notification benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption was not admissible to the appellants and the demand was rightly sustained.

---