TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore new product had emerged - the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/733/2008, E/2561/2007 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60859-60860/2017 - Dated:- 15-5-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Shri S.C. Jain, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri Atul Handa, AR ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in the State of Himachal Pradesh Kala Amb. On 23.7.2008, the appellant filed declaration under Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003 for availing the exemption by way of substantial ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tric motor. No chemical reaction takes place in the process of blending. No new product emerges as a result of this blending. The properties and characteristics of industrial fuel oil and furnace oil are same. This blending activity is undertaken to improve the viscosity of the furnace oil. With improved viscosity, the said industrial fuel oil is more economical. 4. He further submits that even the tariff classification of the furnace oil and industrial fuel oil is same i.e. under heading 2710. He submits that the activity of blending/mixing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture under the central excise law. To support this contention, he relied on the CBEC circular No.83/83/94-CX dated 13.12.1994 to say that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Madras Rubber Factory-1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) and Tata Chemicals Ltd.-2015 (320) ELT 45 (SC). He also submits that the some part of the demand is barred by limitation. 7. On the other hand, learned AR submits that the appellant is engaged in the activity of blending/mixing of furnace oil and MTO which converted into industrial fuel oil which is a different item and the same amounts to manufacture. Admittedly the goods manufactured by the appellant do not qualify under exemption Notification No.50/03-CE, therefore, the appellant is required to pay duty. 8. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 9. We find that initially the appellant was paying duty on industrial fuel oil and opted for exemption under Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
