V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

1. The appellants, M/s. Vital and Vital Oil Pvt. Limited had obtained licence in Form L-4 for manufacture of Vegetable Non-essential oils, the licence specifying that it extends only to the manufacture of vegetable non-essential oils comprised in Tariff Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff. By letter dated 12-5-1982 they had requested for addition of hardened rice bran oil, hardened castor oil and hardened linseed oil, to the licence already issued, stating that these items are vegetable non-essential oils for industrial consumption/use only and not for human consumption. The Superintendent of Central Excise wrote to them under letter dated 14-5-1982 that these three products would fall under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. By letter dated 18-5-1982 the appellants claimed that the three products would be classifiable under Tariff Item 12 only and the reliance of the Superintendent upon the Notification No. 33/63- Central Excise, dated 1-3-1963 as amended was not proper. They enclosed with said letter the details of the process for manufacture of these three commodities and contended that they continued to be vegetable non-essential oil only in spite of this process. When they tiled classification list for the said three items uncles Tariff Item 12 the Assistant Collector held adjudication and thereafter passed an order dated 27-6-1983 classifying these three commodities under Tariff Item 68. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under order dated 2-3-1984. This appeal is against the order dated 2-3-1984.

2. Sri G.S. Jetly, Advocate along with Shri Ajit Bhosme, Advocate, appeared for the appellants, the respondent being represented, by Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, S.D.R.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. In the Tungabadra Industries case 1960 Vol. 11 STC 827 the Supreme Court dealt with the question whether hydrogenated groundnut oil continued, even after hydrogenation, to be groundnut oil only within the meaning of Rule 18(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turn Over and Assessment) Rules, 1939. The Court took into consideration the process undergone by the groundnut oil during hydrogenation and took note of the fact that an inter-molecular or configurational chemical change takes place which results in the hardening of the oil but held that in spite of such, a chemical change the product continued to he groundnut oil only, It held that in its essential nature no change had occurred and it remained an oil-glyceride of fatty acids- that it was when it issued out of the press. They held that hydrogenated oil continued to be groundnut oil notwithstanding the processing, which was merely for the purpose of rendering the oil more stable, thus improving its keeping qualities for those who desire to consume groundnut oil.

4. The oils in question in the present appeal are non-edible hardened oils, said to have passed beyond the stage of mere hydrogenation, having been hardened for industrial purposes. This Tribunal had in the cases of Hindustan Lever Limited 1984 (17) E.L.T. 166 and Jayalakshmi Cotton Oil Products Limited (1984 ECR 1795) considered cases of hardened oils for industrial purposes and had held that they were VNE oils falling under Tariff Item 12 only and not under Tariff Item 68. But Shri Lakshmi Kumaran points out that this Tribunal had in the earlier decision of Veg Oils Limited (1983 E.L.T. 1822) held that extra hardened technical oil will have to be classified under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 12. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran points out that the said decision had been rendered having taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court also (cited supra) that the latter two decisions relied on by the appellants had not considered the decision in 1983 E.L.T. 1822. He, therefore, contends that now this case should be decided following the decision in 1983 E.L.T. 1822 or, at any rate,