9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 37/89-Cus for "Synthetic Aluminium Oxide". 2. Definition and classification of "abrasive products" versus "polishing compositions". Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Duty under Notification No. 37/89-Cus The appellants sought the benefit of Notification No. 37/89-Cus, which grants exemption to Synthetic Aluminium Oxide imported for manufacturing grinding wheels and other abrasive products. The Collector (Appeals) rejected this claim, stating that the appellants' products, Cambay C 101 and Cambay C 102, were polishing compositions and not abrasive products as required by the notification. Issue 2: Definition and Classification of "Abrasive Products" versus "Polishing Compositions" The appellants argued that their polishing compositions, which contain aluminium oxide synthetic, qualify as abrasive products because they perform functions such as smoothening, cutting, and polishing metals. They cited various technical definitions and literature to support their claim that polishing compositions can be considered abrasive products. The Assistant Collector, however, differentiated between abrasive compositions and polishing compositions. According to the Handbook of Electroplating by Canning, abrasive compositions are primarily for cutting, while polishing compositions are for producing a smooth, reflective surface with minimal material removal. The Collector (Appeals) supported this view, stating that the appellants' products were primarily for polishing and not for abrasion, making them ineligible for the exemption. Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges: Judgment by Member (J): The Member (J) concluded that the term "other abrasive products" in the notification should be interpreted broadly to include polishing compositions. The Member (J) noted that both abrasive and polishing functions aim to achieve a smooth surface and that polishing is an abrasive activity. Therefore, the appellants' products should qualify for the exemption. Judgment by Member (T): The Member (T) disagreed, stating that the notification specifically refers to grinding wheels and other abrasive products, implying a narrower interpretation. The Member (T) emphasized that the appellants' products are primarily for polishing, which is a distinct function from abrasion. Therefore, the products do not qualify for the exemption under the notification. Final Decision by Vice President: The Vice President agreed with the Member (T), emphasizing the technical and commercial distinction between abrasive compositions and polishing compositions. The Vice President noted that the notification's reference to "grinding wheels and other abrasive products" should be interpreted to include products similar to grinding wheels, which are primarily for cutting. Polishing compositions, which are mainly for producing a reflective surface, do not fit this category. Conclusion: In light of the majority view, it was held that the synthetic aluminium oxide imported by the appellants and used in the manufacture of polishing compositions would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 37/89-Cus. The appeal was therefore rejected. Final Order: The synthetic aluminium oxide imported by the appellants and used in the manufacture of polishing compositions will not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 37/89-Cus. The appeal is rejected.
|
