India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I  Insc 142 (25 February 2005)
Pal, Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker Arijit Pasayat, J.
calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by Customs, Excise &
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta (in short the 'CEGAT'). Initially there was a difference of opinion
between two Members i.e. Technical Member and the Judicial Member and the
matter was referred to a third member. The third member agreed with the Technical
Member and by majority the decision went against the assessee-appellant. The
judgment is reported in 2000 (123) ELT 789 Tribunal (Castrol India Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I).
factual position in a nutshell is as follows:
appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of blended or compounded
lubricating oils. It also processes a product called 'Super TT' which the
appellant claimed to be a blended lubricating oil ordinarily used for
lubrication. The undisputed process of manufacture of the said product as
stated by the appellant is as under:
Oils are taken to the blending kettle, heated to remove moisture. Additives are
added and mixed well.
reduced and MTO and green dye added and mixed well, to get the final
product." Admittedly, the flash point of the 'Super TT' is below 94oC
Therefore, assessee appellant claimed that the same is not classifiable under
Heading 2710.60 of the Tariff under Customs Tariff Act, 1985 ( in short the
'Tariff Act') as the same covers lubricating oils having flash point more than
94:C. As such, the product was claimed to be classifiable as 'others' under
sub-heading 2710.99. Revenue disputed the position and held that the benefit of
the Exemption Notification No.120/84-CE dated 11.5.1984 is applicable only to
the lubricating oils falling under sub-heading 2710.60, as there is no other
heading for lubricating oil in the Tariff Act. The appellant's stand was that
the said Exemption Notification extends the benefit to all types of lubricating
oils, irrespective of their classification. As its product is admittedly a
lubricating oil, the scope of the Notification cannot be restricted to the
lubricating oils falling under a particular tariff entry.
show-cause notices issued related to demand of duty against the assessee in
respect of their blended "Super TT" which was cleared at
"nil" rate of duty during different periods. The said notices
culminated into two different orders whereby proposed amount of duty and
personal penalty were confirmed. The dates of show-cause notices, the period
involved, the duty demanded and the penalty demanded are as follows:- Sl. No.
of show cause notice Period involved Demand of duty Penalty 1
1.8.1991 to 31.12.1991 Rs.20,46,994.23 Nil
1.1.1992 to 29.2.1992 Rs.10,77,390.00 Nil
1.3.1992 to 31.8.1992 Rs.19,96,362.88 Nil
1.9.1992 to 31.1.1993 Rs.19,83,411.76 Nil Total Rs.71,04,159.47 2.
7.1.1989 to 31.7.1991 Rs.47,59,343.40 Rs.30 lakhs Assessee preferred two
appeals before the CEGAT. It was submitted that for a long time Exemption
Notification dated 16.3.1976 in relation to Item no.11B and the rate of duty
was nil was held applicable to it. The Entry 11B was repealed in the year 1984
and it became a part of Item 68. Thereafter Notification no.120/84 covered the
field and the same notification continued upto 1994. In between the Tariff Act
was introduced which introduced a new tariff in Chapter 27 w.e.f. 1.3.1986
under the Tariff Act. Section 5A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short
the 'Act') all along held the field.
Item No.11B was a part of the First Schedule of the Act.
to introduction of Section 5A(4)in the Act w.e.f. 19.5.1988 Rule 8 of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') provided for exemption. The
Notification No. 120/84-CE was issued on 11.5.1984 when the earlier Excise
Tariff was a part of the First Schedule of the Act.
said notification exempted blended and compounded lubricating oils i.e.
lubricating oils obtained by straight blending of mineral oils or by blending
or compounding of mineral oils with other ingredients. The said exemption was
granted without reference to any tariff item under which such blended and
compounded lubricating oils were classified.
new Excise tariff contained in the Tariff Act came into force w.e.f. February
1986. Under that Tariff, blended or compounded lubricating oils with flash
point above 94: C were classifiable under sub-heading 2710.60 and other
lubricating oils along with other petroleum products were classified under
Chapter sub-heading 2710.99 which was a residuary entry. The Exemption
Notification No.120/84-CE continued un-amended till it was rescinded by
Notification No.64/94-CE dated 1.3.1994. Three classification lists were filed
by the appellant which were operative from 1.4.1986, 5.5.1996 and 1.3.1998. All
these classification lists were approved by Assistant Commissioner by extending
the benefit of Notification No.120/84. The classification list dated 18.3.1988
was operative for the relevant period under dispute. Since product was having
flash point below 94: C, therefore, there was no question of any suppression as
alleged by the Department.
further submitted that the notices were issued after prescribed period of
stand was resisted by the Revenue on the ground that the assessee-appellant had
given description of its product to claim benefit under Notification No.120/84
CE. Its product was not classifiable under Heading 2710.60. Wrong claiming of
benefit establishes mala fide intention and, therefore, the extended period of
limitation was rightly invoked by the Department. There is specific and
unambiguous definition of lubricating oil under Chapter Heading 2710.60 of
Chapter 27. Chapter Heading 27.10 covers a number of petroleum products and
each category is further covered under a separate sub-heading. Sub-heading 60
covers lubricating oil and there is no other sub-heading covering lubricating
oils. When the exemption notification granted exemption it necessarily means
that lubricating oil falling under said sub-heading alone was covered.
the Judicial Member accepted the stand of the assessee- appellant, the
Technical Member took the view that for the purpose of Exemption Notification
No. 120/84-CE lubricating oil for flash point below 94: C ceases to be
lubricating oil as it acquires general description 'others' under sub-heading
2710.99. Therefore, the Department's view was accepted. With the similar
observations the third member concurred with the member technical and upheld
the Department's stand.
support of the appeal, Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel submitted
that the two members constituting the majority lost sight of the fact that
there may be lubricating oils having flash point 94: C which may be classified
under Tariff sub-heading 2710.99 as "others". The view of the
majority that "lubricating oil" has been defined in a particular manner
under heading 2710.60 is apparently erroneous.
response, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted
that the Exemption Notification has to be strictly construed and the view taken
by the majority of the members is on a proper reading of the various provisions
and the Notifications.
would be relevant to take note of the entries and relevant Notifications at
different points of time. The Notification dated 16.3.1976 read as follows:
Central Government has exempted the excisable goods of the description in
column (3) of the Table below and falling under the Item of the First Schedule
to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), specified in the
corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Table, from so much of the duty
of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of said Act as is in excess of the
duty leviable at the rates specified in the corresponding entries in column (4)
of the said Table;
Item No. Description Rate of duty (1) (2) (3) 4) 6 11B Blended or Nil.
lubricating oils and greases.
dated 11.5.1984 reads as follows:
OR COMPOUNDED LUBRICATING OILS AND GREASES.
or compounded lubricating oils and grease are fully exempt from basic excise duty.
354(E) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts blended or
compounded lubricating oils and greases, that is to say lubricating oils and
greases obtained by straight blending of mineral oils or by blending or
compounding of mineral oils with any other ingredients, from the whole of the
duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).
- The expression
"mineral oil" has the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 1 to Item
No.6 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of
1944)." Entry no. 11B read as follows:
Blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases:
or compounded lubricating oils and greases" means lubricating oils and
greases obtained by straight blending of mineral oils or by blending or
compounding of mineral oils with any other ingredients.
The expression "mineral oil" has the meaning assigned to it in
Explanation 1 of Item No.6." Chapter 27 so far as relevant for the purpose
of present dispute contains sub-headings 2710.60 and 2710.99 which read as
Lubricating oil, that is to say, any oil as is ordinarily used for lubrication,
excluding any hydrocarbon oil which has it s flash point below 94o C.
Others." In Collector of Customs, Bangalore v. Maestro Motors Ltd. (2004 (174) ELT 289 (SC), this Court held as
is settled law that to avail the benefit of a notification a party must comply
with all the conditions of the Notification. Further, a Notification has to be
interpreted in terms of its language. If in the Notification exemption is
granted with reference to tariff items in the First Schedule to the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975, then the same Rules of Interpretation must apply. In that
case the goods will be classified, even for the purposes of the Notification,
as they are classified for purposes of payment of duty. But where the language
is plain and clear effect must be given to it. In this Notification what is
exempted is components, including components of fuel efficient motor cars in
semi-knocked down packs and completely knocked down packs. Undoubtedly, for
purposes of levy of custom duty, by virtue of Interpretative Rule 2(a), the
components in a completely knocked down pack would be considered to be cars.
But in view of the clear language of the Notification the components including
components in completely knocked down packs are exempted. Effect must be given
to the wording of the Notification. Thus components in completely knocked down
packs would get the exemption under this Notification, even though for purposes
of classification they may be considered to be cars." Section 5A(4)of the
Act reads as under:
notification issued under sub-rule (1), and every order made under sub-rule (2)
of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in force immediately before
the commencement of the Customs and Central Excise Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987
shall be deemed to have been issued or made under the provisions of this
Section and shall continue to have the same force and effect after such
commencement until it is amended, varied, rescinded or superseded under the
provisions of this Section." Undisputedly in the present case there was no
reference to any tariff entry in the Notification. Therefore, the majority view
is clearly unsustainable. Additionally, we find that CEGAT had in some other
cases taken the same view as the minority view. It is fairly accepted by
learned Additional Solicitor General that there has been no challenge to the
said decisions one of which is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-I (2003 (154) ELT 698 (Tri-Kolkata)
decided on 30.10.2002.
Notification 120/84-CE dated 11.5.1984,in view of what is prescribed in Section
5A(4) of the Act, continued to be operative and effective as it was not
amended, varied, rescinded or superseded under the provisions of Section 5A of
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edition, Vol.5, at page 2753, we find:
"That is to say" is the commencement of an ancillary clause, which
explains the meaning of the principal clause. It has the following properties:
must not be contrary to the principal clause;
must neither increase nor diminish it;
where the physical clause is general in terms it may restrict it; see this
explained with many examples, Stukeley v. Butler Hob, 1971".
quotation, given above, from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary shows that,
ordinarily, the expression "that is to say" is employed to make clear
and fix the meaning of what is to be explained or defined. Such words are not
used as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a possible doubt for which
purpose the word "includes" is generally employed. In unusual cases,
depending upon the context of the words "that is to say", this
expression may be followed by illustrative instances. (See State of T.N. v. Pyare Lal Malhotra (1976 (1) SCC 834), Mahindra
Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union
of India (1992 (1) SCC 727); Sait Rikhaji Furtarnal
v. State of A.P. (1991 Supp (1) SCC 202); and R. Dalmia
v. C.I.T. (1977 (2) SCC 467).
expression "that is to say" is descriptive, enumerative and
exhaustive and circumscribes to a great extent the scope of the entry.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain (2000 (5) SCC 511).
expression "that is to say" in sub-heading 2710.60 has to be
interpreted to be words of limitation. The fact that sub-heading 2710.60
contains an exclusion clause goes to show that there may be other lubricating
oils which may fall in the residuary heading "others".
sub-heading 2710.60 significantly uses two expressions. They are
"that is to say" and
first expression is used in description, enumerative and exhaustive sense and
to a great extent circumscribes the scope of the entry. But the second
expression dilutes the pervasiveness by carving out an exception for the
purpose of the particular sub-heading a particular type of lubricating oil.
other types of lubricating oil are covered by the residuary entry i.e. 2710.99.
the Notification 120/84CE lubricating oil was exempted without reference to any
tariff heading/sub-heading. Consequently, the criteria specified in the
Notification were satisfied. That being so, majority view contained in the
order of the CEGAT is not sustainable and is set aside. The minority view as
expressed is confirmed.
appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.