1985 (9) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Correct classification of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) under the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Interpretation of the term "polyvinyl derivative" under Item 15A(1)(ii).
4. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions.
5. Request for a larger bench to reconsider the matter.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeal in respect of six appeal Nos. CD/SB/1670/86-C to 1675/86-C were filed beyond the prescribed time limit. After hearing both parties on the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant's counsel, the Bench condoned the delay and proceeded with the hearing of the appeals.

2. Correct Classification of Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) Under the Central Excise Tariff:
The appellants argued that PVA should be classified under Sub-item 2 as "Articles of Plastic" rather than under item 15A(1)(ii) of the central excise tariff. They contended that PVA, being produced by alcoholysis or hydrolysis of polyvinyl acetate, is not a derivative of polyvinyl but a modification, and thus should not be classified under 15A(1)(ii). The learned counsel cited various chemical dictionaries and books to support this argument, emphasizing that the processes involved in creating PVA are not polymerization or co-polymerization.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Polyvinyl Derivative" Under Item 15A(1)(ii):
The Tribunal examined the definitions and descriptions from several authoritative sources, including the CONDENSED CHEMICAL DICTIONARY and PLASTICS MATERIALS by J.A. Brydson. It was established that PVA, despite being a product of modification, retains the fundamental structure of polyvinyl acetate and thus qualifies as a derivative. The Tribunal noted that modification in chemical terms involves replacing some radicals of a high polymer with other chemical entities, resulting in significant changes in properties without destroying the polymer's structural identity. Therefore, PVA, being derived from polyvinyl acetate, fits within the scope of "polyvinyl derivatives" under Item 15A(1)(ii).

4. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions:
The learned counsel for the appellants referenced previous Tribunal decisions (Order Nos. 57 to 60/1984 and 83/84-C) but sought to distinguish them, arguing that the current case required reconsideration. However, the learned SDR read these orders and argued that the appeals deserved to be rejected based on the established precedent.

5. Request for a Larger Bench to Reconsider the Matter:
The appellants requested that a larger bench hear the matter, suggesting that the Tribunal's previous decisions needed re-evaluation. However, the Tribunal found this request premature, as the bench had not yet concluded its decision on the classification of PVA. The request for a larger bench was thus rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that polyvinyl alcohol is a derivative of polyvinyl acetate and is correctly assessable under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The arguments that PVA, being a modification product, should not be classified as a polyvinyl derivative were not convincing. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the request for a larger bench was denied.