TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the Respondents. [Order per: S.D. Jha, Vice-President (J)]. - The question for decision in this appeal is classification for the purpose of Central Excise duty on Sal olein and Sal stearine whether the products fall under Tariff item 12 as claimed by the appellants or under Tariff Item 68 as assessed by the Revenue. 2. At the hearing of the appeal on 9-12-1986, it was noticed that the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....item 68 and confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 3,58,419/-raised against the appellants). He, however, stated that arguments addressed in this appeal may be taken as having been addressed in the supplementary appeal and supplement appeal proposed to be filed disposed of on the strength of arguments now advanced on the same lines as this appeal. To this, Shri Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Collector had decided against the appellants and appeal against this order had been presented before the Collector (Appeals) Bombay. 5. Shri C.S. Lodha explained that Sal olein and Sal stearine are products obtained from fractionation through parent sal oil. They are tryglyceride obtained from vegetable wastes. While solid portion of the oil is called sal stearine the liquid portion is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Bombay High Court in IVP Ltd. v. Union of India & Others 1986 (25) E.L.T. 615 Bombay. This Bomaby High Court decision in para 8 of the judgment had also taken note of the Five Member Bench decision (supra) of the Tribunal and would appear to have approval of the same. Shri Lodha argued that following the ratio of these decisions, the two products Sal olein and Sal stearine which are not fit f....