TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh watering vacuum pump. Products Vermax-002 is collected from top of the colum to collect I the receiver through condenser at 100 C to 160 C Temp. the liquid portion transferred into under ground storage tank from the receiver rest of the bottom product is Vermax-004 viz. higher boiler by gravity transferred into underground tank after cooling. As per out manufacturing process there is no generation of waste water and solid hazardous 2.1 Learned Counsel pointed out that till 30/06/2006, the appellants were classifying the product under chapter heading 2710 and paying duty. Then they realized that the product is classifiable under chapter heading 2709, same heading which applicable to their raw material 'comingled oil'. The appellant claimed that under the impression that no duty is leviable on the said product stopped paying Central Excise Duty. On 30 May, 2006 samples of Vermax 002 and Vermax 004 were drawn by the Revenue. On the basis on advice of their consultant and as per decision of Tribunal in the case of Oil India Ltd.- 2002 (148) ELT 802 , the appellant concluded that the good should be classifiable under heading 2709. On 28/06/2006, the chemical examiner vide his let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ends to classify the goods. However at no stage the said query has been answered. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Indian Oil Corporation 2017 (354) ELT 585 (Mad.) to assert that Show Cause Notice without containing material particulars like sub headings under which product ought to have been classified is not viable law. 2.3 Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of MVR Chemicals and Oils 2019 (26) G.S.T.L.108 (tri- Bang.) to assert that the burden of proof of classification is on the Revenue and department needs to put notice of intended classification. He relied on the said decision also to assert that the residue to crude oil after process of dehydration does not amount to manufacture and the resultant product after the process of dehydration remains crude oil. Learned Counsel also contested the penalty imposed on the Managing Director asserting that the issue is a technical issue and the difference of opinion and therefore, no penalty on the Managing Director can be imposed. 3. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order. He argued that redemption fine should have been im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... .to Rs. 13,79,758/- (detailed as Per Annexure-B to the Panchnama dated 12/09/2006 and as per Annexue-A to the S.C.N) should not be recovered from them if not already recovered at the time of provisional release of seized goods under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. iii. The seized goods viz., Vermax-002 & Vermax-004 total 64447 Ltrs., valued at Rs. 13,79,758/- should not be held liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with section 34 of Central Excise At, 1944 which were provisionally released by The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Div-III, Ankleshwar, Surat-II on execution/acceptance of B-11 bond for Rs. 13,79,758/- and Bank Guarantee of 25% of value i.e. Rs. 3,44,940/- iv. Penalty should not be imposed upon unit under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 It is seen that in the Show Cause Notice there is no allegation as to why the classification claimed by the appellant viz 2709 should not be changed. And it also does not suggest why the goods should be classified under any particular heading. 4.2 It is seen that before the first appellate authority a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es in the SCN went to the root of the jurisdiction of the Revenue to impose any liability on IOCL. It was the learned Senior Advocate's submission that the SCN had four deficiencies : (i) First, it did not re-classify the subject products, (ii) Second, it did not indicate the period, for which, duty was proposed to be levied, (iii) Third, it did not quantify the proposed duty, and (iv) Lastly, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the third round seeks to proceed beyond the legal periphery of the SCN, as duty, is demanded, for the period beyond December 1992, which is the date of the SCN. 6.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that given the facts obtaining in the case, and the decision rendered by the Tribunal, no question of law arises for consideration of this Court. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Tribunal had, in its decision, adverted to undisputed facts, and simply applied the law, which had been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of : Metal Forgings v. Union of India - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), and thus, the matter did not require any interference by this Court. 6.2 In a nutshell, Mr. Venkataraman, submitted that the appeal had no me....