9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is liable to be sustained. - E/2822/1998, 381 and 2134/2002 - A/122-124/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 13-4-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Kishore Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In appeal No. E/2822/98, the dispute is about the classification of two products which were described by the assessee as melamine-formaldehyde and urea-formaldehyde resins in the relevant classification list effective from 28-2-93. These goods were collectively described as "finishing agents, dye-fixing agents of a kind used in textile, paper and leather." Both the products were classified under Heading 38.09 (SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Examiner says that the sample is composed of aqueous solution of melamine and formaldehyde pre-condensate. It further says that such composition is known to find use as anti-crease finishing agent in textile industry. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the latter part of the Chemical Report. It is submitted that, where aqueous solution melamine-formaldehyde pre-condensate is of a kind used as finishing agent in textile industry, it should appropriately be classified under SH 3809.00. Similar contention has been raised in respect of aqueous solution of urea-formaldehyde pre-condensate also. The learned Counsel has also referred to expert opinion. He has produced a copy of the opinion given by Professor (Dr) M.A. Shenoy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the goods being found to merit classification equally under Headings 3809 and 3909, the latter one should be preferred. 5. After considering the submissions coupled with the available evidence, we are in favour of classifying the goods under SH 3909.10 and 3909.20 for the following reasons : (a) The assessee themselves correctly described the goods as urea-formaldehyde resin and melamine-formaldehyde resin in the relevant classification list. Of course, they also broadly classified these goods as "finishing agent, dye fixing agent of a kind used in textile, paper and leather." However, one has got to take into account, the finer description given by the assessee, which was never sought to be modified by them. Urea-formaldehyde and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), where the rival tariff entries describe the goods in such a way that one is descriptive and the other is specific, the latter will have to be preferred. Urea-formaldehyde and melamine-formaldehyde resins are specific when compared to the description of "finishing agent/dye-fixing agent etc. of a kind used in the textile industry." As per Interpretative Rule 3(c), where a given commodity is classifiable equally under two different headings in the Tariff Schedule, the one which appears later in the schedule will have to be preferred. In the present case, this is heading 3909 and therefore, urea-formaldehyde resin and melamine-formaldehyde resin should be appropriately classified under SH 3909.10 and 3909.20 respectively. 6. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
