COMMR. OF C. EX. Vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Revenue, represented by SDR. No representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. In the circumstances, we take up the appeal for disposal.

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the short question to be considered is 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. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Tribunal's decision in Mineral Oil Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur : 1999 (114) E.L.T. 166 (Tri.) and held that the above activity did not amount to 'manufacture' and therefore duty of excise was not leviable on the reclaimed lubricating oil. Challenging the decision of the appellate Commissioner, the appellant submits that the appellate authority overlooked the test laid down by the Apex Court in Brakes India Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise : 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). SDR has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and has also furnished the texts of the cited decisions.

(3.) ONE of the decisions cited by the appellant is that of the Supreme Court in Brakes India (supra), wherein it was held that a process yielding a product of different character and use than that of the input would amount to 'manufacture'. That case is distinguishable on facts.