AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Solvents used in Paints/Rubber, etc., falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said industrial solvents were manufactured by the respondent's undertaking fractional distillation of naphtha. The first cut of distillate was to obtain low boiling points range, which is sold by them under product name 'SL-1' as such, without blending with any additives on payment of appropriate duty. The appellant also undertook further distillation over and above the boiling point range of first distillate and obtained second and third cut of distillate at different boiling points range, which were blended further with additives. These blended products were sold under product name 'SL-2' c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent samples of the intermediate products for testing to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, who, vide letter dated 18-11-2005 after carrying out necessary tests reported that the samples were not suitable for use as 'fuel' in spark ignition engine. By their further letter dated 25-11-2011, it is reported that the samples also did not satisfy the requirement of 'motor spirit' in admixture with the permissible additives. Also, the department could not furnish any details of alleged comparable goods of M/s. Atlas Petrochemicals and M/s. Ram Remedies even though specifically directed by the Tribunal in its order dated 15-9-2003. Consequently, the Commissioner on the basis of test report, dropped the proceedings against the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise, Indore v. M/s. Dhar Cement Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 411 (S.C.)]. 4. Per contra, the Learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that pursuant to the Tribunal directions dated 15-9-2003, the samples were drawn by the department and sent to HPCL for necessary testing. On analysis of the sample, it was reported by the HPCL that products are not suitable either by themselves or in admixture with other substance for use as fuel for spark ignition engine, hence did not satisfy the second test for classification of the product under Chapter sub-heading 2710.13. He has submitted that the issue is now settled in favour of the respondent in the following cases :- (i) Ram Remedies Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld by the Tribunal in the case of Sliverchem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai - [2003 (155) E.L.T. 204 (Tri.-Mumbai)] that a product to be classifiable as special boiling point spirit under sub-heading No. 2719.13 has to satisfy both the criteria for motor spirit - in regard to flash point as well as suitability for use as fuel, and that satisfaction of flash point criterion alone is not sufficient. Secondly, we also find that the details of comparable products manufactured by M/s. Atlas Petrochemicals and M/s. Ram Remedies have not been made available to the appellants. Similarly, comparative chart showing the difference between the impugned goods and goods manufactured by M/s. G.A.I.L. showing both products to be different was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered as motor spirit. Even though the department has furnished invoice of GAIL and classification list of M/s. Atlas Petrochemicals, since they did not provide the necessary test results of the said product and established that as to why the impugned products of the respondent are comparable with the products of alleged other manufacturers, the Learned Commissioner has observed that the products manufactured by the said manufacturer cannot be comparable as there is no specific evidence to indicate that the impugned products of the assessee are also marketable as motor spirit. Consequently, the Commissioner has decided to issue in favour of the respondent. We find that the department has not challenged the said test report by sending it t....