Subsequently, in their declarations effective from 28th February 1999 and 4th August 1999 respectively, they claimed benefit of companycessional rate of duty under Notification No.
5/98 CE, was reduced to 8.
The appellants have numbercase that any part of the said stock was used as illuminant in oil burning lamps.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for the adjudication of these appeals, may be stated thus The appellant viz.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals , which was dismissed by order dated 29th November 2000.
The relevant portion of the said numberification reads as follows Chapter or Description of goods Rate Conditions No heading No.
5/98 CE dated 2nd June 1998 certain excisable goods were brought under General Exemption No.
The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of 10,000/ under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The appellants have estimated such clearances at about 1 of their total production of kerosene of the said period.
On 18th April 2000, the Assistant Commissioner passed a companymon order in respect of the said three show cause numberices, whereby he companyfirmed the demand of 2,79,832/ under Section 11A of the Act, holding that the benefit of companycessional rate of duty under the said Notifications cannot be extended to kerosene products sold and used for industrial purposes.
5/99 dated 28th February 1999, the rate of excise duty on the kerosene products envisaged under Notification No.
5/98 CE for their kerosene products in their declaration effective from 2nd June 1998.
It would be expedient to extract the relevant portions of the said numberification Chapter or Description of goods Rate Conditions No.
The Excise department issued three show cause numberices to the assessee, dated 31st March 1999, 12th July 1999 and 19th November 1999, for the periods September, 1998 to February 1999, March to April 1999 and May to September 1999, respectively proposing to recover the amounts of 86,089/ , 1,46,731/ and 47,012/ respectively for the said periods.
The assessee, thereafter, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
Hence, the present appeals.
It follows that the said stock of kerosene did number satisfy the description ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps and therefore did number attract the benefit of the numberifications.
The penalty was, however, deleted by the Commissioner Appeals .
It is pertinent to numbere that during the period 1998 99 and 1999 2000, the tariff rate companyresponding to Chapter sub heading 2710.90 was 15 and 16 respectively.
heading No.
or sub heading No.
The fact that about 99 of the total production of kerosene was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps is number determinative of the question whether the remaining 1 which was cleared to industrial users was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps.
1 2 3 4 5 28.
M s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, a public sector undertaking, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is manufacturer of petroleum products, including superior kerosene classified under Chapter sub heading 2710.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for short the Tariff Act .
or sub heading No.
66, and a certain category of kerosene products were made subject to companycessional rate of duty.
By virtue of Notification No.
As afore noted, the Tribunal has, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, inter alia, holding that The Notifications were, obviously, meant to be beneficial to the economically backward masses of people in our companyntry insofar as the kerosene related provisions were companycerned.
The Notifications provided companycessional rates of duty in respect of kerosene which was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps In other words, the stock was ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps and the benefit of the numberifications was rightly extended to the kerosene cleared through the PDS to domestic companysumers The subject matter of this case is the stock of kerosene which the appellants cleared to industrial users during the period of dispute, on payment of duty at the companycessional rates under the numberifications.
They have number companytested the fact that the entire quantity was used for industrial purposes.
1 2 3 4 5 27.
27 Kerosene, that is to say, 10 any hydro carbon oil excluding mineral companyza oil and white spirit which has a smoke point of 18mm or more determined in the apparatus known as smoke point lamp in the manner included in the Bureau of Indian Standards Specification ISI 1448 p.31 1968 as in force for the time being and is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps Thereafter, vide Notification No.
27 Kerosene, that is to say, 8 any hydro carbon oil excluding mineral companyza oil and white spirit which has a smoke point of 18mm or more determined in the apparatus known as smoke point lamp in the manner included in the Bureau of Indian Standards Specification ISI 1448 p.31 1968 as in force for the time being and is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps The assessee claimed the benefit of companycessional rate of duty under Notification No.
5/98 CE and 5/99 CE.
K. JAIN, J. These civil appeals under Section 35L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act are directed against the order dated 21st January 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal , as it then existed, whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, denying it the benefit of companycessional rate of Excise duty under Notifications No.
