ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the ‘fat liquor’ is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 12/94-CE as amended by Notification Nos. 102/94-CE dt. 4.5.1994 and 14/95-CE dt. 16.3.1995 in table at Sl. No. 5 which grants partial benefit and exemption to the ‘description of goods’ in column No. 3 of the table of Notification which reads “Lubricating preparations” falling under sub heading shown as 3403.00. There is no dispute in this appeal by the authorities with regard to the item being the question of ‘fat liquor’ falling under the sub heading 3403. The authorities below have not granted the benefit of Notification on the ground that the item is not a Lubricating Preparations.
2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants the Ld. Counsel submits that the very question as to whether the “fat liquor” is a lubricating preparations or not/was gone into in great detail by the Bench in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. vide final order No. 1434-1437/2001 dt. 23.8.2001 2001 (99) ECR 338 (T). This Tribunal took into consideration the Technical Literature and various technical opinions and held that ‘fat liquor’ is used as Lubricating preparations and it comes within the terms “Preparations made for use in Leather”. The Tribunal followed the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Bombay Chemicals P. Ltd. v, CCE and thereafter gave a detailed findings in terms of the report of the Chief Chemists of Central Excise that the item ‘Fat Liquor’ is to be required to be considered as a ‘Lubricating Preparations’ only. He submits that this view squarely applies to the facts of this case. He submits that as the issue is squarely covered in terms of the decision of the Tribunal, the appeal is required to be allowed by holding that the item is entitled to the benefit of the Notification in question. He also refers to the technical opinion of the CLRI dt. 19.12.1995 at 52 of the paper book which are certified that the sample of Fat Liquor ‘GLH Liquid’ is a Lubricating Preparations and used in Leather processing. He submits that the evidence in the present case is similar to the one noted in the case of CCE v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. and hence the appeal is required to be allowed.
3. The Ld. DR Shri C. Mani submits that the facts are similar. He reiterates the departmental findings.
4. On a careful consideration and perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v. Balmer Lawrie and Ltd. (supra) we notice that this Tribunal has dealt with the same matter pertaining to the grant of the benefit of the Notification to the fat liquor. In the light of the technical literature and the certificates produced from the Chief Chemist of Central Excise Laboratory, New Delhi, a clear finding has been recorded that the item is covered by the description ‘lubricating preparations’. The findings recorded in para 6 of the order is reproduced below.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions and the records of the case. We are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner after detailed examination have categorically held that the items in question satisfied the terms of the Notification inasmuch as the item in question is a “lubricating preparation”. The grounds raised by the Revenue is that in terms of HSN for classification of a product under heading 3403 there is difference and distinction between lubricating preparation and the one used in form machine purpose of a preparation of a kind use in industry. We are not in these appeals concerned with the question of classification of the item falling under chapter 34 or its exclusion. For the purpose of grant of exemption of a Notification, the plea with regard to applicability of HSN explanatory note cannot be considered. The reason being that the terms of Notification is comprehensive and there is no scope for any intentment or drawing a different inference than the words used in the notification. The Notification has to be strictly construed. The words therein are that it exempts lubricating preparations, not containing petroleum, Oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals and falling under heading 34.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which heading is also not disputed by the Revenue. Further the technical literature clearly supports the view expressed by the lower authorities. Further the point which is not disputed is about the item being a lubricating preparation in the leather industry and the Revenue wants to exclude it as they want to contend that the item to be categorized “as a preparation of a kind used in industry”. As stated above, we are not dealing with the classification issue but considering as to whether the item to be held to be “lubricating preparation” and whether it contains any petroleum oils obtained from bituminous mineral falling under heading 34.03. There is no dispute about the item falling under heading 3403 and about it not containing petroleum oils obtained from bituminous mineral. Thus the benefit of the exemption Notification cannot be denied. We notice that the similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of CC v. Century Enka Ltd. (supra) and have held that Spin Finish Oil was found to be lubricating preparations and the question whether they are preparation of kind used for oil or greasing in textile machines need not be answered. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay chemicals v. CCE (supra) which squarely applies to the facts of the present case and we see no reason to take a different view. We find no merit in the Revenue appeal and the appeals are dismissed.
We, therefore, following the rulings of the Tribunal and applying the ratio thereof, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)