TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the impugned order. But learned DR objects for review of earlier order. 2. Following direction of Hon'ble High Court made by order dated 30.11.2012, appellant was allowed to proceed to argue the matter. He submits that Tribunal did not consider about no levy of excise duty on other similar 266 assessees and most particularly 24 in U.P. and 3 in Ghaziabad processing waste oil consisting of various types of oil like base oil, transformer oil, etc. Therefore, there should not be disparity in taxing this appellant when others were not taxed. To support his contention, he submits that the Tribunal in the past has already decided in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation that the process carried out to convert waste oil into good oil s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Appellant further relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Universal Viscose Oil Products Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. reported in 2010 (258) ELT 22 (All.) to submit that no commercial commodity having arisen by the process carried out by the appellant, that shall not amount to manufacture. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that the demand is time barred. 4. According to appellant waste lubricating oil shall fall under Chapter 27 and most particularly under the sub-heading no.27109100 or 27109900. Therefore, Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 not dealing with the goods of the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Marketability test is also irrelevant when the process does not am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s results in manufacture. It was specifically dealt in that order since the definition of manufacture is to be construed to cover treatment in the context of latest development of the law which takes care of the Revenue. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. There was rivalry submission from both the sides. We made sincere efforts to find out whether disparity was caused to the appellant at the stage of hearing interim application on 21.08.2012 and order thereon passed on 1.10.2012. When the question of disparity was argued today, we noticed from the submission of the appellant recorded in para-3 of the order that the Tribunal did not fail to fairly consider all the submission of the appellant as made above with the citation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject of one statute does not prevail over other statute. 9. We have also gone into the decision which has been indicated by Hon'ble High court of Allahabad in the order dated 30.11.2012 in CEA 801 of 2012. We note that the said decision was under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. We did not find that the said decision shall be profitable to the appellant when ld. Counsel failed to bring the ratio laid down therein to our notice to argue applicability thereof to the present case. 10. The decision of the Tribunal what that is relied upon by the appellant in the case of Cee Jee Lubricants (supra) has not at all dealt the object of Chapter Note-4 of Chapter 27. Therefore, when amendment to the tariff entry under Chapter 27 was made for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompliance on 27.08.2013. Call the matter on that date. 13. While passing above order, we are reminded of the anxiety of the Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. CCE -1985 (19) ELT 22, and for convenience of reading, para 7 of the judgement is reproduced below:- 7. We have come across cases where the collection of public revenue has been seriously jeopardised and budgets of Governments, and Local Authorities affirmatively prejudiced to the point of precariousness consequent upon interim orders made by courts. In fact, instances have come to our knowledge where Governments have been forced to explore further sources for raising revenue, sources which they would rather well leave alone in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is the bounden duty of the Court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens faith in the impartiality of public administration, a Court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. But since the law presumes that public authorities function properly and bona fide with due regard to the public interest, a Court must be circumspect in granting interim orders of far reaching dimensions or orders causing administrative, burdensome inconvenience or orders preventing collection of public revenue for no better reason than that the parties have come to the Court alleging prejudice, inco....