Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1996 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (6) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Assessment of products for benefit under Notification No. 76/86 - distinction between bitumen and asphalt - eligibility for hot mix benefit under the notification. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the assessment of the appellants' products, including prodorphite, prodorkit, coromastic, special mastics, mortar, etc., for eligibility under Notification No. 76/86 related to "Asphalt Mix and Hot Mix." The appellants claimed the benefit of the notification for their products. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that the products were manufactured by mixing bitumen with fillers like quartz and carbon, resulting in hard blocks, which should be considered as hot mix, thus entitling them to the notification benefit. The Respondent's representative, the learned DR, contended that bitumen and asphalt are distinct items, citing definitions from the Condensed Chemical Dictionary. Bitumen was described as a mixture of hydrocarbons, while asphalt was characterized as a cementitious material predominantly consisting of bitumens obtained from petroleum refining. The DR argued that bitumen and asphalt are different, and the benefit available for asphalt cannot be extended to bitumen products manufactured by the appellants. The Tribunal examined the definitions provided in the Chemical Dictionary and noted the distinction between bitumen and asphalt. While bitumen may be present in asphalt, asphalt is considered more than just bitumen. The benefit of the notification was specifically for asphalt mix and hot mix. The Tribunal referred to a tariff advice stating that products prepared by mixing stone chips with heating at 150oC are not eligible for the notification benefit. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' products, manufactured from bitumen, did not qualify as hot mix under the notification. The mix produced by the appellants did not meet the criteria of hot mix as defined in the notification, which referred to asphalt or bitumen but not composite products like those manufactured by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of the notification. In summary, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the distinction between bitumen and asphalt, the specific criteria outlined in the notification for hot mix benefit, and the nature of the products manufactured by the appellants, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|