TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 2707.90. Large number of periodical show cause notices were issued covering the period 26.4.1989 to 28.2.1999, seeking to reclassify the product under Heading 2707.90. 3. All these notices were adjudicated by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order dt. 22.10.2001. He ordered classification of the product under 2707.90 and confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 12,35,01,433/-. The appellants preferred appeal which was rejected for non-compliance of predeposit of Rs. 9 crores to hear the appeal. The said appellate order dt. 20.12.2002 was contested before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.1031/2004 dt. 08.12.2004 granted waiver of predeposit and set aside the orders of the lower authority. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order of adjudication in respect of 24 SCNs. The original authority decided the case vide his order dt. 28.2.2005. He confirmed the classification under Heading 2707.90 and also differential duty demand of the above said amount. The appeal preferred by the appellant was decided by the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the findings of the original authority and rejected the appeal. 4. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited Vs. Union of India 1993 (67) ELT 34 (SC) the apex court had held blending of different qualities of ores possessing different physical and chemical compositions, so as to produce ore of contractual specification, does not amount to manufacture, since ore that is produced is not commercially a new and distinct commodity but the same article. It shall only tantamount to processing and not manufacture . In this case the product supplied to rubber industries, is distinctively known as process oil and extracts. After blending, a commercially new product with the viscosity that is specially suitable for the end user emerges, which amounts to manufacture. This is specific process resulting in commercially new product that is tested for the required specifications by their laboratory to suit the customers needs. 27. The assessee had relied on Judgement passed on M/s. Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. contending that their product is not a manufactured item. In the judgement it is said that the assessee had to prove that their product is either not produced or manufactured or if they had been produced or manufactured they were not marketed or capable of being marketed. The judgement is base....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puty Chief Chemist, CRCL was consulted on the issue. The Deputy Chief Chemist, CRCL has stated that HSN Explanatory Note under HSN Heading No.27.13 covers extracts derived from the treatment of lubricating oils with certain selective solvents and thus furfural extracts of different grades would squarely fall under sub-heading no.2713.39/2713.30 during the relevant period as other residues of petroleum oils obtained from bituminous materials . The processed oils (speciality oils) in question, are manufactured products obtained by blending the said extracts. These are tailor-made products to meet the specific requirements for a particular use viz. rubber processing oils and are individually identifiable as rubber processing oils and thus would cease to be furfural extracts and for these reasons, the processed oils in question do not remain qualified for classification under sub-heading no.2713.39/2713.30 as other petroleum residues . In view of the provisions of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 27, the possibility of classification of such goods under Heading No.27.10 of Central Excise Tariff 1985 is also ruled out since aromatic constituents in this case is predominate over non-aromatic co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a new excisable product in terms of Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act,1944. The proceedings which were initiated by the Revenue is actually for reclassification of the product. The appellants were all along discharging Central Excise duty on these products classifying them under Heading 2710.50. When the Revenue sought to reclassify the product under Heading 2707.90 and to demand differential duty, the appellants questioned their liability to duty itself on the ground that they did not undertake any process amounting to manufacture. 8. Hence the first issue is to decide the question of manufacture. The appellant sought to support their view on the ground that they were simply mixing different extracts with various viscosities to make a 'process oil' with desired viscosities for use in the tyre industry. We have examined this contention of the appellant. Admittedly, the emphasize of the appellant is on the simple process of physical blending to obtain the product of desired viscosity. We note that the appellants are making the whole issue very simplistic. The processes as recorded in the impugned order are not contested. The process of making speciality oil namely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dro carbon group. For classification under Central Excise Tariff, the tariff entries along with section /chapter notes are to be examined. We note that the classification of the impugned goods have been examined by the Board in consultation with Deputy Chief Chemist and the view of the Board was communicated to the field formations through circular dt. 13.2.1989. The appellants are contesting this. It is their submission that the Dy. Chief Chemist is not competent to decide the classification. They have relied on certain case laws in this regard. We note that a careful perusal of the clarification issued by the Board will make it clear that it is the Board which finally decided the classification and there is no infirmity in taking an advice of an expert in this regard. We find classification in the present case was clarified by the Board and not by the Dy. Chief Chemist. On careful perusal of the said clarification and examining the facts of the present case, we note that the classification as ordered by the lower authorities under tariff heading 2707.90 is proper and correct. The appellant's claim that Heading 2713 is not applicable to the impugned goods as the product is not....