AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant'), against the Orders-in-Original MLR-EXCUS-000-DN01-JTC-KDK-082-2014-15, dated 5-3-2015 and MLR-EXCUS-000-DN01-ADC-KDK-068-15-16, dated 20/25-1-2016 (hereinafter referred to also as the 'Impugned Order'), passed by Joint Commissioner, Mangalore Commissionerate, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority'). Brief facts of the case 2. The assessee was engaged in processing of waste oils obtained from ships, ports, and petroleum companies to recover the fuel oil commercially known as reclaimed fuel oil. After carrying out various processes the reclaimed fuel oil is sold to customers. Since the processing results in emergence of a product with distinct name and having different physical/chemical characteristics the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m-tax benefit has to be allowed * Have relied on numerous case laws in their support Prayed to set aside the Order-in-Original and give consequential relief. In another Appeal 43/15/MR/ST the director of the company has submitted that * The penalty under Rule 26(1) can be imposed only if there is guilty mind on the part of the appellant and the burden of proof is on the department * Since the issue was interpretation of the provision of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act no personal offence was committed * No evidence is adduced to show that he had connived in the alleged offences by the company and had knowingly caused the clearances. 4. A personal hearing was condu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This is sold as waste oil and is purchased by the appellant. I observe that the lower authority has relied on the test reports to decide that the two are different products and the process amounts to manufacture. I also find that the lower authority has not discussed any of the rulings that have been referred to by the appellant. 7. Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture. The Apex Court in the landmark decision in the case of U.O.I. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199), held that "The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as 'bringing into existence a new substance,' however, minor in consequence the change may be." The true test for determining whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'manufacture' so as to attract levy of duty of excise and this view was upheld when the civil appeal filed by the department was dismissed by the Apex Court. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, wherein it was held that the Tribunal's decision in Mineral Oil Corporation (supra) would apply on all fours to the subject case. 9. Further in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE, Kanpur [1999 (114) E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal)] it was ruled that Manufacture - Reclamation of transformer oil from used transformer oil does not amount to manufacture so as to attract levy of Central Excise duty afresh - No new product comes into existence as transformer oil remains transformer oil only after the process undertaken by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....talks about the lubricating oil obtained from re-refining or re-processing waste oils and other oils obtained from various sources. In the instant case the product was not lubricating oil falling under the 2710 19 80 but is reclaimed fuel oil falling under 2710 99 00. The circular also states that the chapter note applies only to "lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of Heading 2710". Other goods falling under CETH 2710 are not covered by the chapter note includes reclaimed fuel oil obtained from waste oils. The deeming fiction provides that when one of the process listed in the chapter note is carried out on lubricating oil or lubricating preparations, it shall be deemed to be manufacture. The instant case is the reclaimed fuel oi....