Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1996 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (9) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of products Naphthol AS, Naphthol ASBS, and Naphthol ASG under sub-heading 2903.10 or sub-heading 3204.29. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of products under sub-heading 2903.10 or sub-heading 3204.29 The appeal concerned the classification of products named Naphthol AS, Naphthol ASBS, and Naphthol ASG under sub-heading 2903.10 as claimed by the respondents or under sub-heading 3204.29 as determined by the Department. Issue 1 Analysis: The respondents, engaged in manufacturing these products, initially claimed classification under sub-heading 2903.10, but the Asstt. Collector classified them under 3204.29. The Collector (Appeals) set aside this order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The respondents argued that the products were used in the manufacture of synthetic organic coloring matter, relying on a clarification from the Board. However, the Asstt. Collector determined that the products were different from naphthol based on a test report, thus not covered by the Board's clarification. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification under sub-heading 2903.10, citing the products were not coloring matter. The appellants contended that the products were not naphthol based on chemical tests and Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 32, supporting classification under 3204.29. Issue 1 Conclusion: The Tribunal observed that the Chemical Examiner's report confirmed the products were synthetic organic derivatives used in dyeing processes, aligning with Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 32. The products were considered as ingredients in the manufacture of coloring preparations, leading to classification under sub-heading 3204.29. The Board's clarification regarding naphthol was deemed inapplicable as the products in question were not classified as naphthols. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of the products in question.
|