1995 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product as polymer or monomer.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 125/87.
3. Relevance of Chapter Notes and Explanatory Notes in classification.
4. Adequacy and reliability of expert reports and Chemical Examiner's findings.
5. Remand for items not covered by reports.

Detailed Analysis:

Classification of the Product as Polymer or Monomer:
The primary issue revolves around whether the product in question, identified as 'Anabond,' should be classified as a polymer or monomer. The Revenue argued that the product should be considered a polymer due to its adhesive properties attained through polymerization at the time of application. However, the Chemical Examiner's report and other expert opinions, including those from CIPET and Dr. P. Desikan, consistently identified the product as a monomer, with minor polymer content used as a thickening agent. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the product as a monomer, noting that the product's adhesive properties emerge only upon application and not at the time of clearance.

Eligibility for Benefit under Notification No. 125/87:
The second issue concerns the eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 125/87. The assessee claimed benefits under S. No. 2, which pertains to "Glues & Adhesives other than based on plastics." The Revenue contended that the product should fall under S. No. 1, "Glues & Adhesives based on Plastics," due to the presence of polymer content. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the product, being primarily a monomer with only minor polymer additives, qualifies for the benefits under S. No. 2 of the notification.

Relevance of Chapter Notes and Explanatory Notes in Classification:
The Revenue cited Chapter Notes and Explanatory Notes to argue that the product should be classified based on its functional quality as a polymer. However, the Tribunal found that these notes are relevant for classification purposes but do not override the specific findings of the Chemical Examiner and other experts, which identified the product as a monomer. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification under Chapter 35.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as "Prepared glues not elsewhere specified or included," was appropriate and consistent with the expert reports.

Adequacy and Reliability of Expert Reports and Chemical Examiner's Findings:
The Tribunal scrutinized the various expert reports and the Chemical Examiner's findings. It noted that the Chemical Examiner's report was not conclusive and that the department did not have the facilities to determine the chemical contents of the product comprehensively. The Tribunal found the expert opinions provided by the assessee, including those from CIPET and Dr. P. Desikan, to be more reliable and detailed. These reports consistently identified the product as a monomer, with minor polymer content used for thickening, and not as a polymer or plastic-based adhesive.

Remand for Items Not Covered by Reports:
The Tribunal observed that some items mentioned in the show-cause notice were not covered by any of the reports presented. For these items, the Tribunal agreed with the Vice-President's suggestion to remand the matter for further examination. This ensures that all items are adequately assessed based on comprehensive and reliable evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of the product as a monomer and confirmed its eligibility for benefits under S. No. 2 of Notification No. 125/87. The Tribunal found the expert reports provided by the assessee to be more reliable than the Chemical Examiner's inconclusive findings. For items not covered by any reports, the Tribunal ordered a remand for further examination. The appeal by the Revenue was thus rejected, subject to the clarifications and observations noted.

← Previous Next →