VEG OILS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision application (hereinafter called the appeal) to the Central Government against the order -in -appeal No. 1896/79 dated 17th Dec. 1979, passed by Shri B.V. Kumar, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35 -P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.

(2.) THE appellants filed a classification list on 23 -8 -1978 in respect of 'Extra Hardened Technical Hard Oil (Palm)' (hereinafter called HTO) wherein they claimed the classification of the goods under T.I. 68 of the CET. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay provisionally approved the classification under T.I. 13, which was subsequently confirmed by letter dated 25 -10 -78. In the meanwhile, sample of the product was drawn and on test it was found that the melting point of the sample was 54 degree 'C', thus not being fit for human consumption and that when mixed with other oil it could be used for human consumption after proper processing. The appellants made further representations but the Excise authorities maintained that the product was classifiable under T.I. 13. The appellants cleared the product under T.I. 13 by paying duty under protest. It further appears that the appellants disagreeing with the classification sought permission of the Range Superintendent to clear the product under provisional assessment under T.I. 12 of the Central Excise Tariff after executing necessary bond. This request was conceded by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and the appellants were called to clear the goods under T.I. 12. The appellants then filed appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay claiming the product should be classified under T.I. 12 and not under T.I. 13 or Tariff Item 68. The Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 17 -12 -1979 held that the product could not be classified under T.I. 12 or Item 13 of the CET. He thus partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order, the appellants filed the revision application before the Govt. of India, which, as already pointed out, stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it.

(3.) AT the hearing, Sh. D. N. Mehta, Consultant represented the appellants. Smt. Vijay Zutshi, S.D.R. represented the respondent Collector. They were heard.