SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1463

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
BHARAT ENTERPRISE – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS- KANDLA – Respondent
Customs Appeal No. 241 of 2011-DB|Customs Appeal No. 242 of 2011|Customs Appeal No. 243 of 2011|Customs Appeal No. 244 of 2011|Customs Appeal No. 247 of 2011|Customs Appeal No. 251 of 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate & Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant
For the Respondents: Shri R Kumar, Superintendent (AR)

90% distillation must occur exactly 'at 210°C' (not approximate) for light oil classification; department fails to reclassify post-clearance without discharging proof burden via proper testing/sampling.

Headnote:(A) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Chapter 27, Note 4 - Classification dispute between condensate (27101990) and light oil (27101190) - 90% or more distillation including losses must occur exactly at 210°C for classification as light oil - Expression 'at' interpreted strictly as not 'up to' or approximate - Initial clearance based on inconclusive test reports upheld where reclassification burden not discharged - Sampling and testing must follow prescribed standards; load port certificates not rejected without basis. (Paras 8.5, 8.6, 8.9)

(B) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 28 - Review of assessment post out-of-charge permissible, but department bears burden to prove misclassification after initial clearance on chemical analysis - Revenue neutrality (CVD credit eligibility) negates suppression intent for extended limitation. (Paras 8.4, 8.10)

Facts of the case:
Imported bulk liquid cargo declared as condensate cleared under 27101990 after initial testing; later DRI investigation alleged light oil under 27101190 based on commingled samples and clarification of 90% distillation at 208°C (vs load port 216°C), proposing differential duty on fixed CVD, confiscation, penalties invoking extended limitation for wilful misstatement.

Findings of Court:
Department failed to prove reclassification; test reports (208°C/216°C) do not satisfy exact 210°C criterion; initial assessment prima facie correct; revenue neutrality exists as differential duty (fixed CVD) eligible for credit; no suppression proven.

Issues: Whether goods classifiable as light oil based on test clarifications; validity of sampling from commingled cargo; invocability of extended limitation; impact of revenue neutrality.

Ratio Decidendi: Burden on department for reclassification post-clearance not discharged absent exact 90% distillation at 210°C or proper sampling/rejection of load port certificate; strict interpretation of 'at 210°C'; revenue neutrality precludes penalty/limitation extension.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of import, sales, testing, and scn issuance. (Para 1)
2. appellants argue misclassification, limitation, revenue neutrality. (Para 2 , 4 , 6)
3. department defends classification as light oil, justifies limitation. (Para 3 , 5 , 7)
4. court analyzes distillation test at exactly 210°c per chapter note. (Para 8)
5. appeals allowed; initial classification upheld. (Para 9)

HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 10267-10272/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 27.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 15.04.2026 SOMESH ARORA M/s. Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as Teej) imported

3265.233 MT of bulk liquid cargo as “condensate” at Kandla Port. They sold 1500 MT to Bajrang Petro, 1000 MT to Jagdamba, 100 MT to Shree Ganesh Oleochem on high sea sale basis and balance of 665.233 MT was kept with them for which they filed warehouse BE. The goods were accompanied with

2 | Page C/2 41 -24 4/ 20 11 , C/ 247 &2 51 /2 01 1 -D B certificate of quality issued by INTERTEK as condensate. Jagdamba Petro filed BE dated 21.04.2009 under heading no. 27101990 for 1000 MT and took delivery of said stock except 6.209 MT. Shree Ganesh filed BE dated 01.04.2009 under heading no. 27101990 for 100 MT and took delivery of stock except 4.100 MT. Bajrang Petro purchased 1500 MT on high sea sale and filed warehouse BE dated 09.06.2009 for 1500 MT under heading 27101990, which was sold to three parties who filed respective ex bond BE on 12/6/2009 (Bharat Enterprises), 18/06/2009 (Jagdamba Petroleum) and 22/06/2009 (Reliable Industries) respectively and took delivery of goods.

1.1 Out of the remaining quantity of 665.233, Teej sold 100 MT to Shree Ganesh Oleochem for which ex bond BE was filed by them on 26.06.2009, but the same was not physically cleared and was lying in tank no.113. On 28.05.2009, DRI initiated investigation about classification of goods stated to be “condensate” by the Appellant-Importers in these bunch matters. It was found that the Vessel MT Rising had discharged 1783.431 MT at Kandla out of which 659.545 MT was discharged in tank no.113 and balance was discharged at other storage terminal. Therefore, on 02.06.2009 they detained the stock in tank no.113 which was co-mingled with the stock already lying in tank no.113. Samples were earlier drawn for which test report dated 23.06.2009 and 24.06.2009 were issued, which revealed the item to be “light oil” falling under heading No. 27101190. On the basis of test reports, DRI seized the stock in tank no. 113 on 24.06.2009. It was an admitted fact that independent samples of the seized balance quantity of cargo, discharged from vessel MT Chemical Progress, could not be drawn as it was found comingled with cargo imported by Vessel MT Rising. However, it was observed that samples were already drawn at the time of import of 3256.233 MT which were tested to be composing of mixture of mineral hydro carbon oil flashing below 25 degree centigrade and having density of 0.7307 g/ml at 15degrees centigrade, API Gravity at 15 degrees as 62 and distillation range of 45 degrees centigrade to 225 degrees centigrade. In the said test report, the temperature reading for

3 | Page C/2 41 -24 4/ 20 11 , C/ 247 &2 51 /2 01 1 -D B

90% distillation was not mentioned and, therefore, chemical examiner was asked to clarify the same. The chemical examiner informed that temperature reading at 90% distillation of subject sample was recorded as 208 degrees centigrade and though available with them was not communicated by them as the local customs had not asked this detail. It was on such basis, the department concluded that the goods were light oil.

1.2 Statements were recorded during investigation. Shri Praesh Jhabarmal Khandelwal, Commercial Manager of TEEJ stated that on being asked by Bajrang Petro for purchase of condensate for distillation in their plant, he arranged for import of condensate. Statement of Shri Rakesh of Jagdamba Petroleum was recorded on 30.11.2009 when he also s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top