1985 (5) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1)(i).
2. Determination of whether the product is a condensation polymerization product.
3. Assessment of the product as a synthetic resin.
4. Consideration of expert opinions and chemical literature.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(1)(i):
The manufacturers, M/s. Epochemick Industries, claimed that their product, diglycidal ether of bisphenol A, was not included under Item 15A(1)(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector classified it under Item 15A(1)(i) as a synthetic resin poly-condensation product. The Tribunal found that the product was not a high polymer resin classifiable under Item 15A, as it did not meet the criteria of being a condensation polymerization product.

2. Determination of whether the product is a condensation polymerization product:
M/s. Epochemick argued that their product was not formed by condensation polymerization, as no by-product was formed during its synthesis. The Tribunal examined various chemical literature and expert opinions, concluding that while the formation of by-products is common in condensation reactions, it is not a necessity. However, the Tribunal found that the reaction involved in producing the diglycidal ether of bisphenol A was not a condensation polymerization but rather a neutralization and nucleophilic substitution reaction.

3. Assessment of the product as a synthetic resin:
The Tribunal noted that for a product to be classified as a synthetic resin under Item 15A, it must be a high polymer with a molecular weight typically above 5000. The product in question had a molecular weight of about 1000 or less, indicating it was not a high polymer. The Chief Chemist's report described the product as an intermediate requiring further reaction to form a thermosetting resin, confirming it was not a finished synthetic resin.

4. Consideration of expert opinions and chemical literature:
The Tribunal reviewed expert opinions and various authoritative texts, including the "TEXTBOOK OF POLYMER SCIENCE," "MODERN PLASTICS TECHNOLOGY," and the "ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY." These sources supported the view that the product was an intermediate and not a high polymer resin. The Tribunal also considered the opinions of Dr. S.R. Ramadas and Dr. V. Thiagarajan, which aligned with the conclusion that the product was not formed by condensation polymerization.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal adjudged that M/s. Epochemick's product was not assessable under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. The orders of the Appellate Collector and the Assistant Collector were set aside, as the product did not meet the criteria for classification as a synthetic resin under the specified tariff item.