1984 (4) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of poly-acrylonitrile powder.
2. Applicability of Tariff Item 15A(1) versus Tariff Item 68.
3. Interpretation of plasticity and polymerization.
4. Validity of the show cause notice.
5. Admissibility of new arguments by the department.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Poly-Acrylonitrile Powder:
The primary issue revolves around whether the poly-acrylonitrile powder produced by the appellant should be classified under Item 15A(1) as "other high polymers" or under Item 68. The Assistant Collector initially classified the powder under Item 15A(1), which was affirmed by the Appellate Collector. The appellant argued that the powder is not a plastic material and lacks plasticity, thus should not fall under Item 15A(1).

2. Applicability of Tariff Item 15A(1) versus Tariff Item 68:
The appellant contended that the poly-acrylonitrile powder should be classified under Item 68, which covers products not specified elsewhere. However, the Tribunal emphasized that poly-acrylonitrile powder, being a polymerization product, fits more appropriately under Item 15A(1). The Tribunal noted that the powder exhibits plastic properties essential for forming acrylic fiber, thus justifying its classification under Item 15A(1).

3. Interpretation of Plasticity and Polymerization:
The Tribunal extensively discussed the definitions and characteristics of plasticity and polymerization. It referred to various authoritative texts to conclude that the poly-acrylonitrile powder possesses plastic properties. The Tribunal highlighted that the powder, when dissolved in nitric acid and extruded through spinnerets, forms acrylic fiber, demonstrating its plasticity. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's argument that the absence of a plasticizer negates the powder's plasticity, stating that many plastics do not require plasticizers.

4. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice was deficient as it did not explicitly mention "other high polymers." The Tribunal acknowledged that while the notice was not ideally phrased, it was sufficient to cover the classification under Item 15A(1) based on the product being a high polymer.

5. Admissibility of New Arguments by the Department:
The appellant claimed that the department introduced a new argument regarding the plasticity of the powder, which was not part of the original show cause notice. The Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the discussion on plasticity was a natural extension of the classification issue under Item 15A(1). The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's own submissions acknowledged the powder as a polymerization product, which inherently possesses plastic properties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of the poly-acrylonitrile powder under Item 15A(1) as "other high polymers," rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under Item 68. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay the duty as demanded under Item 15A(1).