TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue by entertaining a view that the oil being cleared by the appellant is a refined vegetable oil, manufactured by them under the brand name 'super distilled' ROO/SDVO/DVO, initiated enquiry against them and recorded the statements of various persons who stated that they adopt the process of neutralisation, bleaching and deodorization, Revenue entertained a view that the respondent's final product is refined vegetable oil inasmuch as all the processes laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stands adopted by them. Further, enquiries were also made from the dealers/ persons dealing in edible and non-edible oil. 3. On the above basis of the result of the investigations made by the Revenue, proceedings were in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product imported by them contained fatty acid 12.5% which cannot be converted into refined vegetable oil, which is required to contain only 0.25% of fatty acid. They never purchased rise bran oil which is essential raw material for the manufacture of edible vegetable oil. The Director of the company Shri Mahesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala, in his statement recorded by the officers had clearly deposed that they were not manufacturing refined vegetable oil. No sample has been drawn by the Revenue to ascertain whether the oil manufactured by them was edible grade or not. The fatty acid present in the imported mixture of oils can only be removed at a temperature of 200 degree centigrade and they are not equipped to maintain such high degree temperature....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the specified standards of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as required one of the conditions of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, as amended by Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and 37/2003-CE dated 31.04.2003. I also do not find that any sample of the said product of the appellants' factory were drawn to ascertain the specified standards required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder. 10. On the other hand there is lab reports accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs CIU, JNCH, Nhava Shera, Mumbai as reported in his letter dated 8.12.2005, that the oil mixture cannot be converted into edible, The adjudicating authority althoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of heating 200 degree centigrade and above for the manufacture of edible grade oil. In support of the above submission the appellants have placed reliance on the export opinion of Sri S.K. Ahuja, Chartered Engineer. In his report dated 19.11.2005, Sri Ahuja has stated that he visited the plant of M/S Jhoola Refinery, situated at Village Naupur P.O. Thanagaddi Jaunpur on 13.10.2005 and studies manufacturing process. According to him, "For distillation of oil it is necessary to process the oil by degumming, Bleaching, dewaxing process. But is necessary to maintain the temperature above 200 degree centigrade for separation of Fatty from oil but there are no equipments installed to have the temperature of 200 degree centigrade as such the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the CESTAT in the case of Indian Plastics and Laminated Ltd. v/ s. CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (169) ELT - 51 (Trib. Del.)]. In the case of O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v/ s. CCE, Delhi - Ill Gurgaon [2005 (180) ELT 300 (SC)] the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that functional utility, predominant usage etc. have also got to be taken into accounts. The aforesaid aids and assistance more important then names used in trade or common parlance. In this case the investing officers instead of enquiring from end users of the said products have relied upon statements of traders and dealers. This proposition of law has further laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Dabur (India) Ltd. v/s. CCE, Jamshedpur [2005 (182) ELT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... U wherein the Apex Court has held that when test results are available, they are best evidence as against market enquires." The CES TAT in the above case has also relied upon the decision in the case of Polyglass Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s. ccE [2003 (153) ELT - 276 (SC)] which lays down that reports obtained by departnnent itself has greater force and it should not be ignored. The distilled oil is manufactured by the appellant from imported oil and this fact is not disputed by the department. The test report of Imported Oil clearly suggested that Edible Oil cannot be manufactured out of those imported oil. Even report of Sri Ahuja Technical Expert also clearly state that the appellant cannot manufacture Refined Vegetab....