2000 (8) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-300 to 1500) under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Applicability of extended period of limitation for demand of duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-300 to 1500):
The primary issue in these appeals is whether Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-300 to 1500) should be classified under sub-heading 2901.90 (later 2905.90) as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 3907.20 as confirmed by the impugned orders. The appellants argued that PEGs exhibit chemical behavior akin to acyclic alcohols and are polymeric derivatives of Ethylene Glycol, which is an alcohol. They cited technical literature and expert opinions to support their claim that PEGs are separate chemically defined organic compounds. They further argued that PEGs do not comply with the definition of plastics as per Note 1 to Chapter 39, which should exclude them from Chapter 39. The department, however, relied heavily on Note 3(c) to Chapter 39, arguing that PEGs with more than 5 monomer units should fall under heading 39.07. The tribunal found that the department did not provide sufficient evidence to classify PEGs as plastics and upheld the appellants' classification under Chapter 29, rejecting the department's appeals.

2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants contended that the demand for duty was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 4-5-1992 for the period from April 1987 to July 1991. They argued that their classification lists were approved after proper testing and there was no suppression of facts. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that the department should have verified the monomer content during the classification process. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, thus allowing the appeals filed by the appellants.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-300 to 1500) should be classified under sub-heading 2901.90 (later 2905.90) and not under sub-heading 3907.20. Additionally, the demand for duty was deemed time-barred, and the extended period of limitation was not applicable. The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and those filed by the revenue were rejected.