1988 (7) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of imported pitch under the appropriate Tariff Item.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 121/62-C.E. for assessment.
3. Evaluation of evidence and expert opinions provided by appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Pitch:

The appellants imported pitch (aluminum grade) and were charged countervailing duty under Tariff Item 68 CET. They claimed that the pitch should be assessed under Tariff Item 11(2) CET, which covers "partially distilled coal tar," and sought the benefit of Notification No. 121/62-C.E.

The appellants argued that pitch and tar are fundamentally similar, citing technical literature that described pitch as a product of partial distillation of tar. They provided affidavits and expert opinions stating that pitch is obtained by distillation of tar and should be classified as partially distilled tar. However, the Collector (Appeals) found that pitch is a distinct residuary product of tar distillation and not partially distilled tar.

The Tribunal examined various technical definitions and literature, concluding that pitch is the residue from the distillation of coal tar and does not yield further identifiable distillates. Therefore, pitch cannot be considered as partially distilled tar.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 121/62-C.E.:

The appellants sought the benefit of Notification No. 121/62-C.E., which they argued should apply to the imported pitch if classified under Tariff Item 11(2) CET. The Tribunal's determination that pitch is not partially distilled tar under Tariff Item 11(2) CET rendered the notification inapplicable. Consequently, the benefit of the notification could not be extended to the appellants.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Expert Opinions:

The appellants presented affidavits and certificates from experts, including a metallurgist and a Deputy Director from the Central Fuel Research Institute, to support their claim that pitch is partially distilled tar. The Tribunal noted that these documents were solicited and lacked a rational basis for their conclusions. Specifically, the Tribunal observed that the affidavits did not provide scientific reasons or evidence to substantiate the claim that pitch is partially distilled tar.

The Tribunal emphasized that technical literature and definitions consistently treated pitch and tar as distinct products. The evidence provided by the appellants was deemed insufficient to challenge this established understanding.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that pitch cannot be classified as partially distilled tar under Tariff Item 11(2) CET. As a result, the appellants' plea for assessment under this tariff item and the applicability of Notification No. 121/62-C.E. was rejected. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the Collector (Appeals)'s order that pitch is a distinct product and not partially distilled tar.