2008 (1) TMI 657 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - whether conversion of used (waste) lubricating oil into reusable lubricating oil undertaken by the respondents during the period of dispute amounted to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act?

Summary

Issues:
Whether the conversion of used lubricating oil into reusable lubricating oil amounts to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the classification of the process of converting used (waste) lubricating oil into reusable lubricating oil as 'manufacture' for the purpose of levying excise duty. The Tribunal considered the precedent set by the Tribunal in Mineral Oil Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, where it was held that the reclamation of usable transformer oil from used transformer oil did not amount to 'manufacture' as no different, new, and distinct commodity emerged from the process. This decision was based on the test established in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the civil appeal against the Mineral Oil Corporation case was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The appellant challenged the decision of the lower appellate authority, arguing that the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Brakes India Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise should have been applied. In the Brakes India case, it was held that a process resulting in a product of different character and use from the input constitutes 'manufacture'. However, the Tribunal distinguished the Brakes India case from the current situation, emphasizing the similarity between the reclamation of usable lubricating oil and transformer oil.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority, concluding that the process of converting used lubricating oil into reusable lubricating oil did not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the precedent set in the Mineral Oil Corporation case, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was sustained.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision rested on the interpretation of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act in the context of reclaiming usable lubricating oil from used oil. The Tribunal relied on established legal tests and precedents to determine that the process did not result in a new and distinct commodity, aligning with previous judgments on similar cases involving transformer oil reclamation.