TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submission which was allowed and order was reserved. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian (Advocate) during hearing on 09.4.2015 and through the written submissions, inter-alia, made the following arguments (i) That appellant is manufacturing Linear Alkyl Benzene Feed Stock (LABFS) and Low Aluminum Rolling Oil (LARO) (ii) That OIO dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Adjudicating authority does not dispute the classification of both the above products under CETH 2710.29 but the second OIO dated 31.12.2012 (Appeal No. E/10639/2013) both LABFS and LARO have been held to be classifiable under CETH 2710.99. (iii) That Revenue is of the opinion that both these products are not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE as the said exemption is applicable to such Kerosene which is ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps. Learned Advocate made the bench go through the relevant tariff entries and the exemption notification. (iv) That as per tariff description under CETH 2710.29 Kerosene represents a group of hydrocarbons which should have following characteristics. (a) It is a mineral oil (b) It should have smoke point of 18mm or more (c) It should have FBP not exceeding 300....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the notice of the Bench case law of CCE Vs IOCL [2003 (157) ELT 41 (Tri.)]. It was his case that the judgment in this case was delivered immediately after the introduction of new tariff with effect from 28.02.1986, while in the present proceedings the period pertains to June 1991 to February 1994. That since dispute pertains to a different period, therefore Revenue can seek a different classification in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. UOI [2006 (2) STR 161 (SC)]. Learned AR made the Bench go through the tariff description under heading No. 2710 with respect to Kerosene prevailing during the period involved in these demands:- Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of Goods Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) (4) 27.10 2710.19 - Other -Kerosene (which is ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps) and aviation turbine fuel, that is to say, any mineral oil (excluding mineral colza oil and turpentine substitute) which has smoke point of eighteen millimetres or more and has a final boiling point not exceeding 3000C 2710.21 -- Aviation Turbine FuelRs. 1000 per KL at 150C. 2710.29 -- Other Rs. 500 per KL at 150C. 2710.99 -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E, Vadodara 2010 (259) ELT 172 (SC) (e) Orient Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupati 2009 (237) ELT 447 (SC). (f) CCE, Trichy vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC) (g) Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Limited vs. CCE 1991 (51) ELT 161 (SC) (h) Novapan India Limited vs. CCE & Cus. Hyderabad 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) (i) CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) (j) CCE, Kanpur vs. Flock India Pvt. Limited 2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC). 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these appeals is as to what could be the classification of LABFS and LARO manufactured by IOCL. Whether the same is classifiable under CETH 2710.29 as claimed by the appellants or the same should be classified elsewhere as not Kerosene . The second issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 75/84-CE will be admissible to the products LABFS and LARO manufactured by the appellant. 5.1 So far as the issue of classification of the products manufactured appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of CCE, Bombay vs. Reliance Industries Limited [2000 (119) ELT 26 (Tri. LB)] and CCE vs. IOCL [2003 (157) ELT 41 (Tri.)]. It is the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is held that products LABFS and LARO will be classifiable under 2710.29 as claimed by the appellant. 5.2 So far as admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE to the appellant is concerned, appellant is of the view that only word Kerosene is mentioned in the exemption notification without any condition or end use prescribed. It is the case of the appellant that word Kerosene used in the exemption notification will cover all mineral oils mentioned in CETH 2710 if they satisfy parameters specified therein, except mineral colza and turpentine substitutes. Revenue, on the other hand is of the view that various case laws relied upon by the appellants are with respect of classification of different Hydrocarbons under CETH 2710. It is the case of the Revenue that parameters given in CETH 2710 for Kerosene can not be put into service for interpreting the word Kerosene used in the exemption notification. Revenue has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IOCL vs. CCE, Vadodara (supra). Appellant has strongly argued that Apex Court s judgment is with respect to Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 02.6.1998 and the same can not be used for interpreting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en on other members of the community correspondingly. Once, of course, the provision is found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas vs. H.H. Dave [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC) = 1969 (2) S.C.R. 253) that such a Notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption." 5.4 It is clearly laid down in the above case law by the Apex Court that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation and in case of any doubt or ambiguity the benefit must go to the State. The word Kerosene used in the exemption Notification 75/84-CE therefore, cannot be understood by taking recourse to parameters given to K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontext in which it has been used." 16. Therefore, in light of the object and context of the notifications, it becomes abundantly clear that the word ordinarily implies that the kerosene must be ordinarily used for illumination purposes, and it would be immaterial if the Kerosene is also used for other domestic purposes. 17. From a bare perusal of the two notifications it is plain that the benefit of concessional rate of duty extends only to that variety of kerosene that : (i) has a smoke point of 18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive, and therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty. In the instant case, the fact that the assessee cleared kerosene manufactured by it to industrial consumers would entail that the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Notifications No. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E." 6 It is relevant to mention that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also the product involved was Kerosene and only1% of the Kerosene manufactured by the appellant IOCL was cleared to industrial users, though the product c....