TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as claimed by the department. b) Whether Super C-9 Plus (second final product) is classifiable under CET 27079900 as claimed by the appellant or under CET 27101190 as claimed by the department. c) Whether the SCN dated 15.11.2011 covering the period from December, 2006 to March, 2008 is barred by limitation. d) Whether the appellant is liable to pay penalty equal to the duty amount (Rs.1,49,05,855/-) under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC. e) Whether the partner Shri Snehal Shah is liable to penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 02. Shri Willingdon Christian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions:- i) The relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit. vi) For better understanding, we give below graphical explanation about the aforesaid facts :- c) Tariff Descriptions : 2707 - Oils and other products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar similar products in which the weight of the aromatic constituents exceeds that of the non-aromatic constituents 2707 10 00 - Benzol (benzene) 2702 20 00 - Toluol (toluene) 2707 30 00 - Xylol (xylenes) 2707 40 00 - Naphthelene 2707 50 00 - Other aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures of which 65% or more by volume (including losses) distils at 250°C by the ASTM D 86 method -Other 2707 91 00 - Creosote oils 2707 99 00 - Other 2710 Petrol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned Order confirming the duty demand with interest and penalties. PROPOSITIONS : 1. If no "manufacture" then no duty payable at all :- There is a categorical finding of fact in the impugned Order (as also in the Show Cause Notice) that the basic characteristics and structure of the raw material have not changed by adding Thermol as an additive and that the raw materials characteristics remain the same in the finished products. This finding of fact has remained unassailed, as the Department has not filed any Appeal against the impugned Order. When that is so, the entire demand becomes unsustainable in law. 2. Department's classification claim - not correct :- The proposed re-classification of the two final product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l product, i.e. Super C-9 Plus and giving details of raw materials and final product. e) The Appellant's letter dated 25.3.2009 being reply to the Audit query vide Department's letter dated 5.3.2009 giving details of raw materials and their classification, rates of duty, manufacturing process, etc. f) The Appellant's letter dated 6.1.2009 informing the Department for part payment of differential duty through Cenvat Credit Register. g) In support of the submissions on limitation, the Appellant also rely upon the following judgments :- • 1994 (4) RLT 526 (SC) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. CCE • 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE • 1995 (6)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... will come into picture only once it is established that there is manufacturing however, in the present case the department itself is of contention that by entire process of mixing of thermol and mixed oil and any other product and thermol and C-9 Plus, there is no change in the nature of the product therefore, this aspect needs to be considered elaborately by the adjudicating authority. It is also not clear that the department has applied the classification of 27101190 on the basis that the input falls under the same CTH and due to no change in the nature of the product, the classification will remain same. 05. However, it is also a fact on record that input received by the appellant from IPCL Nagothane the classification was made under....