1998 (1) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Pidicryl 3252B under sub-heading 3906.90, Provisional approval of classification lists, Show cause notice for reclassification under sub-heading 3903.90, Recovery of differential duty, Imposition of penalty, Pre-dominance of acrylic monomer in contested goods, Disregard of claim by Adjudicating Authority, Determinative factor for classification of co-polymer and polymer blend.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the classification of Pidicryl 3252B under sub-heading 3906.90. The assessee had filed classification lists, and the jurisdictional Assistant Collector had provisionally approved them. However, a show cause notice was later issued claiming reclassification under sub-heading 3903.90 and seeking recovery of the differential duty for clearances made in June 1990, which was confirmed in the impugned order along with the imposition of a penalty on the appellants.

During the proceedings, the Director of the Assessee firm argued that the clearances were made when the price lists were provisional, thus no demand should be issued under Section 11A. The Departmental Representative was directed to verify this claim. Despite a lack of response from the jurisdictional Commissioner, the Tribunal did not grant an adjournment as the Assistant Collector's letter clearly indicated that the assessment at the material time was provisional, denying the request for an adjournment.

The Director also referred to correspondence with the Adjudicating Officer, highlighting that the contested goods contained a higher percentage of acrylic monomer compared to styrene. The classification should be under sub-heading 3906 based on the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer, as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 39, which determines classification based on the weight pre-dominance of a particular co-polymer. The Adjudicating Authority had disregarded this claim, leading to the appeal's success on the grounds of the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer and the determinative factor for the classification of co-polymers and polymer blends.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed appropriate relief in favor of the appellant based on the findings regarding the classification and the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer in the contested goods.