2016 (5) TMI 1065 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Whether the product Super Micro Binder 20 would be appropriately classified under Chapter Heading 3906 or 3911 and whether product Triton AE is correctly classifiable under Heading 3911 as claimed by the appellant or 3906 as claimed by the Revenue - Held that - it is found that the product which answers to the description of Acquous Polymer in primary form are covered under heading 3906. Also the Dy. Chief Chemist s report, categorically states that the product Super Micro Binder 20 is a resin based on Acrylic Monomers. If the product of the appellant is based on Acrylic Monomers, the product merits classification under 3906.90, as there is technically no difference in respect of acrylic monomer or acrylic polymer. Our finding is based upon a published literature which indicated that a polymer can be made up of thousands of monomer. Hence, acrylic polymer which are covered under Heading 3906 are nothing but acrylic monomer linked up by a process called polymerization. The Tribunal has held in respect of similar products in the appellant s own case reported in 2001 (4) TMI 358 - CEGAT, MUMBAI , that similar product containing copolymer resins were held merit classification under chapter Heading 3906.90. The said order was affirmed by the Apex Court Therefore, we do not find any difference in the products in question before us as against the product which is classified under CETH 3906.90 by our order dated 30-4-2001. Since the classification of the product Super Micro Binder 20 is upheld under Chapter Heading 3906.90, the quantification of the demand would be recalculated by the lower authorities in accordance with the findings recorded in this order. The entire issue being of classification dispute, in our view, there is no necessity to impose any penalty on the appellant. - Appeals disposed of

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Chapter Heading Nos. 3906 and 3911, applicability of Notification No. 14/92, and imposition of penalties.

In this case, the appellant was manufacturing excisable goods and had classified a product, "Super Micro Binder 20," under Chapter Heading No. 3906 to claim a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 14/92. However, the Revenue contended that the product should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 3911. The lower authorities relied on the Dy. Chief Chemist's report, which described the product as a resin, to support the Revenue's classification. The appellant challenged this classification before the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The first appellate authority upheld the decision. Another product, "Triton AE," was also under dispute for classification under Chapter sub-heading No. 3906. The Tribunal considered both appeals together due to common issues.

The main issue was whether "Super Micro Binder 20" should be classified under Chapter Heading 3906 or 3911. The appellant argued that the product fell under 3906, while the Revenue claimed it belonged to 3911. The Dy. Chief Chemist's report described the product as an aqueous synthetic resin emulsion based on acrylic monomers. The Tribunal analyzed the classification criteria of both chapters and found that the product met the description of acrylic polymers in primary forms under Chapter 3906. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment where similar products were classified under 3906.90, supporting the appellant's classification. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the classification of "Super Micro Binder 20" under Chapter Heading 3906. The demand was to be recalculated accordingly without imposing any penalties.

Regarding "Triton AE," the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's classification under Chapter Heading 3906 but directed the lower authority to consider all benefits eligible under Notification No. 14/92 for this product. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefits should be extended to the appellant and instructed the lower authority to recalculate the demand accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly applying the exemption notifications and ensuring fair treatment for the appellant. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of based on the above findings.