Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1036 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Coal Tar Partially Distilled (CTPD) - whether classifiable under Tariff Heading 27060090 or under Tariff Heading 27081010 of the Central Excise Tariff? - HELD THAT:- The Tar is distilled from coal and from coal or from other minerals while pitch is obtained by blending with creosote oil or other coal tar distillates and both the goods are distinct and different in nature. Coal Tar Pitch is a residue product when the solvent has been completely extracted out of Tar whereas Pitch is the last residue in the process of destructive distillation of coal and in this process the distilled products like High and Low Naphtha, High Creosote Oils are obtained. Once a product is Pitch, it is no longer Tar. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BOLPUR VERSUS STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [2004 (1) TMI 399 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Pitch Creosote Mixture is a “pitch” and not a “partially distilled tar”, hence it is classifiable under sub-heading 2708.11 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Heading 27.06. “Tar” and “Pitch” are covered under separate tariff headings after 1.3.1986, “Tar” is classifiable under Heading 27.06 and Pitch under heading 27.08. “Pitch” is derived by distillation of “Tar” wherein the oils – Light oil, Naphthalene oil, Creosote oil and other residual oils are removed. Depending on the extent of oil removed “Pitch” may be “soft pitch” or “medium soft pitch” or “medium hard pitch” or “hard pitch”. Once “pitch” is obtained, it is a completely different product from “Tar”. Once a product is “Pitch”, it is no longer “Tar”. Pitch can, under no circumstances, fall under the Tariff Item 27.06. SAIL, DSP has contended that they are not having pitch plant and have submitted photographs to prove this. It is also their contention that they never manufactured pitch of any type since 1987 nor had any facility to manufacture pitch. - The facts need to be verified. It is also found that no independent evidence has been disclosed in the adjudication orders to discharge the onus cast upon the Revenue to establish the correct classification of the impugned goods, as contended by them, and is covered by the Apex Court’s decision in CCE Vs. SAIL (supra). The matters need to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh de novo decision upon due consideration of the evidences produced and to be further produced by SAIL, DSP and upon following the principles abovestated laid down by the Apex Court and observing the principles of natural justice and affording SAIL, DSP a personal hearing - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|