1998 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product under Heading 35.06 for duty purposes.
2. Allegation of removal of goods without proper accountal.
3. Discrepancy in the Chemical Examiner's report.
4. Request for retesting of the sample.
5. Interpretation of Notification No. 125/87 distinguishing between products based on plastics and others.
6. Definition of plastics under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Classification of the Product:
The appeal revolved around the classification of the product manufactured by the appellants under Heading 35.06 for duty purposes. The department alleged removal of goods without proper accountal and claimed that the product, an adhesive, was based on plastics, hence liable to pay duty at a higher rate under Notification No. 125/87.

Discrepancy in Chemical Examiner's Report and Retesting Request:
The appellants argued that the Chemical Examiner's report was self-contradictory as it mentioned the product being composed of epoxy type and based on plastics. They requested a retest of the sample, which was not accepted by the authorities. The department contended that the report was clear and specific, stating that the product was an adhesive based on plastics, hence no retesting was necessary.

Interpretation of Notification No. 125/87:
The appellants highlighted that the notification distinguishes between products based on plastics and others, suggesting that nitro cellulose, a component of the product, should not be considered a plastic. They argued that the product should not be classified as plastics based on the result of polymerisation, condensation, or polycondensation.

Definition of Plastics under Chapter 39:
The Tribunal analyzed the Chemical Examiner's report, which confirmed the presence of nitro cellulose, synthetic resins, plasticizer, and volatile solvents in the product. The report concluded that the product was a prepared adhesive based on plastics. The Tribunal referred to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff, which includes cellulose nitrates under plastics, supporting the department's stance on the classification of the product.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the department's decision, emphasizing that the Chemical Examiner's report clearly identified the product as an adhesive based on plastics. The Tribunal found no grounds for retesting and confirmed that the product fell under the category of plastics as per Chapter 39, justifying the demand for duty at the appropriate rate specified in Notification No. 125/87. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.