Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1997 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (2) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Classification of trimethylbenzene as a chemical or chemical formulation.
- Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 276/67.
- Determination of whether a new product was formed after distillation of solvent C-IX.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the classification of trimethylbenzene. The Collector held that trimethylbenzene was neither a chemical nor a chemical formulation, denying the benefit of Notification No. 276/67 to the appellants. The appellants received C-IX solvent under Chapter X procedure and claimed that after converting it into trimethylbenzene, a new chemical formulation was created. However, the Revenue Department's laboratory report concluded that trimethylbenzene was not a chemical or chemical formulation, leading to the denial of the benefit.

The appellant argued that the distillation process resulted in the creation of a distinct product, trimethylbenzene, meeting the definition of a chemical change under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Act, 1944. They cited chemical dictionaries to support the distinct nature of trimethylbenzene. Despite the laboratory report's findings, the appellant contended that no authoritative literature supported the conclusion that trimethylbenzene was not a chemical or chemical formulation, urging for the benefit under Notification 276/67.

The Department, represented by the learned DR, relied on the chemical report's findings to assert that no new product emerged after distillation. The laboratory tests on solvent C-IX and trimethylbenzene indicated no significant differences, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim. Citing precedent, the DR argued that the lower authorities rightfully confirmed the duty demand on solvent C-IX due to the absence of a new distinct product.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal focused on determining whether a new product was formed post-distillation of solvent C-IX. Despite the appellant's arguments based on chemical literature, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision. The unchallenged test findings, indicating no substantial difference between solvent C-IX and trimethylbenzene, led to the rejection of the appeal. Consequently, the duty demand on solvent C-IX was deemed valid, and the impugned order was upheld.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates