1985 (2) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R, for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellate Collector's Order No. 7/ASM/82 dated 25-1-1982 held that the CBFS was a LSFO liable to duty under Notification No. 60/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976 (amended by Notification No. 343/77-C.E., dated 16-12-77) at ₹ 138.75 kl. This, the Indian Oil Corporation say, was wrong. 2. Their oil was supplied as feed stock to M/s. Philips for the manufacture of car....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthorities in calling their oil a low sulphur fuel oil, but the main burden of his argument was that their oil should not be classed a low sulphur fuel oil because it was not a fuel oil and was not used as a fuel oil, as they can prove. 4. The learned Counsel for the department said, the oil may not have been used as a fuel oil but it fell under Item 10-CET in accordance with its physical tests. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rade notice. The latter specified 1% as the dividing line. They also drew support from the IS which shows requirements of sulphur of 3.5% for LV grade fuel oil, 4% for MV grade fuel oil and 4.5% for HV grade fuel oil. The oil refinery argued that their oil was not a fuel oil, and so cannot be disqualified on a quality prescribed for fuel oils. 6. The difficulty with this argument is that a furnac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs low absolutely, but comparison with other fuel oils standards specified by IS also show that level to be low. The lowest sulphur level specified by IS for fuel oil is 3.5%. If 0.5% of sulphur level is not low, it is difficult to see what is M/s. Indian Oil Corporation's rejection of the sulphur content as irrelevant is not a correct understanding. The oil is assessable under Item 10 and such as....