ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. These are two appeals filed by the Collector against the orders-in-appeal dated 27-6-1990 passed by Collector (Appeals), Ahmedabad.
2. Learned DR stated that a common issue is involved in both these cases and therefore, they may be heard together. The respondents are manufacturer of hardened oil. In one of the cases, the oil is rice bran oil and in other case, the oil is the inedible groundnut oil. Both are in the nature of industrial oils. The issue of their classification has already been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal).
3. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already held that such industrial oils continue to remain classifiable under Item 12 in spite of their being subjected to hardening process, the issue could be treated as a settled one. It was the Department’s contention that the Notification No. 115/75 allowed the benefit of exemption only in respect of TI. 68 goods and not in respect of T.I. 12 goods.
4. It was their grievance that although this aspect was also involved, the Collector (Appeals), in his order dated 27-6-1990, has not recorded any finding in respect of the applicability or otherwise of the notification and merely recorded his finding with reference of the classification. Therefore, the matter was required to be remanded to him for recording a finding with reference to the exemption notification also.
5. Learned Counsel stated that he would also like to refer to these two judgments but would like to point out that in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal), the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has observed in Paragraph 7 thereof that irrespective of the fact whether extra hardened rice bran oil produced by the appellants was classified under Item 12, or under Item 68, it would remain fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 33/63-C.E., dated 1-3-1963 under Item 12, and under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 under Item 68. Therefore, the remand was not necessary and on the basis of this observation alone, it could be held that they were eligible for the benefit.
6. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the observations of the Tribunal mentioned in Paragraph 7 of Tata Oil Mills’ case were made before the arguments started and are not indicative of the final conclusion of the Bench which has been recorded only in Paragraph 19 and 22 in which it has been held that extra hardened rice bran oil continues to remain a rice bran oil classifiable under Item 12.
7. In any eventuality, once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself held that inedible vegetable/industrial oil remains classifiable under Item 12 even after hardening process, it is no longer open to the respondents to say that it was immaterial as to under which heading the product was classifiable.
8. The tariff classification was also important and relevant for the purpose of the case because the Notification No. 115/75 itself refers to Tarrif Item 68 goods and it is applicable only to such cases as were classifiable under Tarrif Item 68. Once therefore we hold that the goods were classifiable under Tarrif Item 12, therefore, it automatically follows that the benefit of notification was not available to such products.
9. While technically, learned DR is correct in pointing out that the learned Collector has merely determined the classification under Tarrif Item 12 and has not recorded any observation and finding with reference to the notification, there is no point in remanding the matter in view of the above legal position.
10. As a matter of fact, once the Collector has held that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 12, it automatically followed that the benefit of notification was not available although it would have been better if he had explicitly so stated.
11. Therefore, we would like to make it clear that the products in question were classifiable under the then Tariff Item 12 but were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 115 /75. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.