Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 566 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURTProcess amounting to manufacture or not - activity of blending of various mineral oils and selling the same to various industrial consumers or persons engaged in the construction of roads - Area Based Exemption - substantial expansion of their plant and machinery to the extent of 25% or more or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The case of the appellant is that there are two ingredients for manufacturing the thinner/industrial oil. The product of the appellant is just a blend of two oils and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of new product, as only the viscosity of the final product is reduced. This Court while taking into consideration the manufacturing process, comes to the conclusion that there are three ingredients, which are (a) two oils as raw-material are used; (b) blending is there with the electric motor and (c) process is carried out for reducing the viscosity of the final product. The final product is sold in a different name. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NOVOPAN INDIA LTD., HYDERABAD VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD [1994 (9) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT] to the facts of the present case, it is clear that (1) two oils are used for the manufacturing the produce (2) Oils are mixed with the electric motor (3) by mixing the oils the viscosity is reduced (4) the final product is used as industrial oil (5) the final product is sold with a different name and brand, so the goods are transformed into other goods, which are different and/or new after electric process, after reducing the viscosity, the use is also changed for the industrial process, marketed with different name(s) and in these circumstances, there is no other conclusion except that the appellant is carrying manufacturing process. The detailed discussion herein above makes it amply clear that the appellant has made substantial expansion of their plant and machinery to the extent of 25% or more which is the basic requirement of exemption under notification No. 50/2003-CE, dated 10.6.2003, the appellant has carried out the manufacturing activities in the plant. So, it is concluded that M/s SRK Petrochemicals Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Thinner and Industrial Fuel Oil. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand is raised well in time by the respondent and the appellant cannot deny the payment of his legal dues towards the respondents - this Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority below, upholding the order passed by the authorities below is just reasoned after appreciating the facts which have come on record to its true perspective and the same needs no interference as the same is as per law. The net result of the discussion is that 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 - the order passed by learned CESTAT needs no interference and the same is upheld. Appeal dismissed.
|