1. This is a Revision application (hereinafter called the appeal) to the Central Government against the order-in-appeal No. 1896/79 dated 17th Dec. 1979, passed by Shri B.V. Kumar, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.

2. The appellants filed a classification list on 23-8-1978 in respect of 'Extra Hardened Technical Hard Oil (Palm)' (hereinafter called HTO) wherein they claimed the classification of the goods under T.I. 68 of the CET. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay provisionally approved the classification under T.I. 13, which was subsequently confirmed by letter dated 25-10-78. In the meanwhile, sample of the product was drawn and on test it was found that the melting point of the sample was 54 degree 'C', thus not being fit for human consumption and that when mixed with other oil it could be used for human consumption after proper processing. The appellants made further representations but the Excise authorities maintained that the product was classifiable under T.I. 13. The appellants cleared the product under T.I. 13 by paying duty under protest. It further appears that the appellants disagreeing with the classification sought permission of the Range Superintendent to clear the product under provisional assessment under T.I. 12 of the Central Excise Tariff after executing necessary bond. This request was conceded by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and the appellants were called to clear the goods under T.I. 12. The appellants then filed appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay claiming the product should be classified under T.I. 12 and not under T.I. 13 or Tariff Item 68. The Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 17-12-1979 held that the product could not be classified under T.I. 12 or Item 13 of the CET. He thus partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order, the appellants filed the revision application before the Govt. of India, which, as already pointed out, stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it.

3. At the hearing, Sh. D. N. Mehta, Consultant represented the appellants. Smt. Vijay Zutshi, S.D.R. represented the respondent Collector. They were heard.

4. Shri Mehta, learned Consultant for the appellants, submitted that T.I. No. 12 of the CET covers Vegetable Non-essential Oils, all sorts, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Palm oil is V.N.E.O. falling under T.I. 12 of the C.E.T. and Hardened Technical Oil is obtained by the process of hydrogenation. The hydrogenation merely converts the unsaturated fatty acids into saturated fatty acids. Irrespective of the fatty acid composition, oils are triglycerides and remain so whether they are in liquid form, semi-solid form, or solid form. Remaining in a liquid form is not a sine-qua-non of Vegetable non-essential oil. In spite of the change that takes place in the composition of fatty acids, hydrogenated oils still remain oils only. Hydrogenation does not render it any less an oil. Hydrogenation, by increasing the saturated fatty acids in palm oil, merely gives it a better quality then what would be obtainable directly from palm oil. The utility of palm oil remains the same. The essential characteristics of palm oil would be present in fatty acids produced by either method. The mere process of hydrogenation does not convert palm oil into a new product and it still remains palm oil. There is thus no manufacture. Shri Mehta also submitted that other Collector's (Appeals) also took the same view viz. Shri V.K. Asthana, Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay vide his order-in-appeal No. 1112/79 dated 20-9-1979, Shri S.K. Srivastva, Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad vide his Order-in-appeal 556/79 dated 1542-79