2014 (1) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....415/- demanded for the period from April, 2010 to September, 2010. Both the demands are on a commodity described by the appellant as "reclaimed base oil". According to the appellant, the process by which the said commodity emerged did not amount to manufacture and hence no duty of excise should have been demanded for the period of dispute. The process, as stated by the party in their reply to one of the show cause notices, reads as under : a.     Waste oil/used oil is collected from various sources such as road transport garages, industries, ships etc. The oil is brought to the factory in leak proof steel barrels or in tankers and off-loaded at a fully concreted yard or to the steel tank. After ascertaining the qua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f moisture, carbon and other impurities and the same was held to be not amounting to manufacture, following the decision in Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE, Kanpur [1999 (114) E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal)] wherein it had been held that reclamation of transformer oil from used transformer oil did not amount to manufacture so as to attract levy of duty. The learned counsel points out that the cited decisions had also been cited before the adjudicating authority but not accepted. It is further pointed out that the impugned demand is based on Note 9 to Chapter 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and that this Chapter Note was wrongly applied to the facts of the case. In this manner, the learned counsel has claimed prima facie case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposit inasmuch as the case law cited by the learned counsel as squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, (Mineral Oil Corporation v. Commissioner), appears to have lost its precedent value in the wake of the Hon'ble High Court's interim order dated 28-5-2010 which was passed in the appeal filed by M/s. CEE JEE Lubricants. From the records, it appears that the appellant is not pleading limitation against the impugned demands. Further, there is no plea of financial hardships in the present stay applications. Nevertheless, we have perused the balance sheet and profit & loss account produced by the learned counsel. These documents do not reflect any uncomfortable financial situation of the assessee as on 31-3-2012. On the other han....