TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting Central Excise duty or otherwise. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that in the appellant's own case for the earlier period, the same issue has been decided by this Tribunal vide order No. A/10908-10909/2022 dated 02.08.2022. Therefore, he requests that following the earlier order, this appeal may be allowed. 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made both the sides and perused the record. We find that in the present case, the demand is for the subsequent period whereas on the same iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Note No. 4 of Chapter 27 gets attracted and the said activity becomes manufacture. We observe that the purifying of the sludge/used oil would not amount to manufacture. 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 whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the case of Mineral Oil Corporation (supra), the Tribunal held that such reclamation of transformer oil did not amount to "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." 5.3 We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel that the issue in this case is identical to the issue in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation (supra) wherein Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi took the view that "Reclamation of transformer oil fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duct and not liable to sales tax." Accordingly, respectfully following the said decisions, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are unsustainable. 5.6 We also find that for applying the said Chapter Note 4 to any goods for examining, whether, manufacture has taken place, it is essential to establish (i) either there is labelling or re-labelling of containers, (ii) there is re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs (iii) such treatments is adopted, so that product is rendered marketable to consumer. From the show cause notice and relied upon documents of show cause notices, we do not find that Revenue could establish that the goods emerged after removal of impurities from waste oil have been marketed to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he process listed in Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27. The circular specifically 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 as the same is 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 preparatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regarding the import of Sludge Oil/Waste Oil and process undertaken by the Appellant in respect of the Waste Oil/ Sludge Oil and the value of clearance for the period from 2004 to 2008-09. The Appellant provided the said information and details by letter dated 22.12.2008. The Appellant's stand that processes did not amount to manufacture and no excise duty was payable, was accepted by the department and no show cause notice demanding duty was issued during the said period. By letter dated 13.12.2010 addressed to the Customs Houses and copy endorsed to the Appellant, the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the Customs House that Appellant was not having Central Excise registration as the Appellant's activity was not excisable. We also....