2022 Supreme(HP) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
M/s SRK Petrochemicals Ltd. Through Its Director Vinod Garg - Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chandigarh - Respondent
CEA No. 8 of 2017
Decided On : 10-05-2022
For the Appellant :S/Sh. Alok Yadav And Goverdhan Lal Sharma Advocates
For the Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora
Point of Law : Ingredients Of manufacturing the thinner/industrial oil - Where the goods remain essentially the s particular process, again there can be no for the reason that the original article continue the said process and the changes bro process.
Headnote:
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Blending vessel – Ingredients of manufacturing the thinner/industrial oil - Where the goods remain exactly the same even after a particular process, there is obviously no manufacture involved. Processes which remove foreign matter from goods complete themselves and/or processes which clean goods that are complete in themselves fall within this category - Where the goods remain essentially the s particular process, again there can be no for the reason that the original article continue the said process and the changes bro process - two ingredients for manufacturing the thinner/industrial oil [Para 10,11]
Finding of the Court:
Reducing the viscosity of two oils by electric process is nothing but manufacturing and the further act of selling the same with a new name and brand is also an additional ingredient to conclude that the appellant is doing the manufacturing process. In these circumstances, the order passed by learned CESTAT needs no interference and the same is upheld.
Result: Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the final order passed by learned Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘CESTAT’), Chandigarh in Appeal No. E/733/2008 and E/2561/2007, dated 15.5.2017, whereby the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of thinner, falling under Chapter Heading 3814.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 registered under Companies Act, 2013. Appellants, apart from manufacturing thinner, are also engaged in the activity of blending of various mineral oils and selling the same to various industrial consumers or persons engaged in the construction of roads and it is clear that various oils, like furnace oil, mineral turpentine oils are filled in the blending vessel from the underground tanks through GT pipelines. The above materials are rotated/blended in the blending vessel with the help of electric motor for about half an hour to mix the above materials properly and this blended oil is called ‘industrial fuel oil’ in the trade and industry. It is also averred in the appeal that industrial fuel oil has the same characteristics and chemical properties, which are contained in the furnace oil and mineral turpentine oil and on blending no chemical reaction takes place, however, minor changes, like improved viscosity is achieved, which is more convenient to use, safe and economical, as compared to furnace oil. Besides this, there is no fundamental difference between the industrial fuel oil, vis-a-vis furnace oil and mineralized turpentine oil. The furnace oil is also an industrial fuel oil and is used in number of industries as fuel. Mixing of turpentine oil in furnace oil dilutes its density and as a result it is capable of being used in a more economic manner.
3. Order-in-Appeal No. 217/CE/CHD/07, dated 28.6.2007, was dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after due trial.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has preferred an appeal before the learned CESTAT, Chandigarh, whereby the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the appeals filed by present appellant were dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the appellant has maintained the instant appeal before this Court.
6. We have heard M/s. Alok Yadav & Goverdhan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent and also gone through the records of the case.
7. Mr. Alok Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no manufacturing process is involved and the product is just blend of two oils, which are already taxed by the respondent and the process carried out by the applicant is simple blending and the same cannot be said to be manufacturing of a product and so the order passed by respondent is required to be set aside by allowing the instant appeal. He has further argued that the order passed by learned CESTAT is perverse and arbitrary and the same has been passed without appreciating the facts, which have come on record, and the law is not properly appreciated, therefore, in these circumstances, the appeal be allowed. He has further argued that there is no chemical reaction while blending two oils and it cannot be said to be a manufacturing process. He has further argued that there is no conversion or change of nature of product. He has further argued that the demand notice issued by the respondent is time barred. He has argued that the instant appeal be allowed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Standing Counsel has argued that a plant has been installed by the appellant, there are storage tanks, blending is with the electric motor, and the product is sold with different names by the appellant and making of the new brand is there, thus it is a manufa