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

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (7) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty) the basic duty of customs leviable was only 75% in terms of Notification No. 36/83, dated 1-3-1983 (as amended) read with Notification 341/76. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellant s claim on the ground that the item of Polyester Chips had been specifically excluded from the purview of Notification No. 36/83, dated 1-3-1983 (as amended). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 2. On behalf of the appellants we heard the learned advocate Shri Ravinder Narain. He stated that in the case of Chemicals and Fibres India Limited v. Union of India, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 917 the Bombay High Court had held that Polyester Chips were covered by the item Artificial or Synthetic Resins . He added that in view of the finding of the Bombay High Court even though Polyester Chips had been specifically excluded from Serial No. 4 of the table annexed to Notification No. 36/83-Cus., dated 1-3-1983 (as amended by Notification No. 219/83, dated 2-8-1983), .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t one and the same item. In support of his arguments he referred to the table annexed to Notification No. 36-Cus. dated 1-3-1983 wherein the items Polyester Resins and Polyester Chips were listed separately at Sr. Nos. 1(iv) and 3 respectively. He added that as a result of the amendment carried out to Notification No. 36/83 by Notification No. 219/83 dated 2-8-1983 the item of Polyester Chips at Serial No. 3 of the table annexed to the Notification was deleted and entry at Sr. No. 4 reading as All others was amplified to read as All others except polyester chips . Shri Bhatia argued that having regard to the fact that in Notification No. 36/83, dated 1-3-1983 and also in the relevant Import Policy, items of Polyester Chips and Synthetic Resins were separately listed and through Notification No. 219/83 the entry against Serial No. 4 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 36/83 was amended to read as All others except polyester chips it was evident that the two items were distinct and after amendment of the notification the concessional rate of duty was no longer available in respect of polyester chips. Shri Bhatia farther contended that the Bombay High Court s d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3 1. 2. 3. 4. The following goods including moulding powders thereof, namely:- (i) Phenol formaldehyde resins (ii) Urea formaldehyde resins (iii) Melamine formaldehyde resins (iv) Polyester resins (v) Epoxy resins (vi) Nylon resins (vii) Polymethyl Methacrylate (viii) Polyphenylene Oxide (ix) Polybutyl terephthalate (x) Polysulphones (xi) Polystyrene resins Polyvinyl Chloride resins Polyester chips All others 150 per cent ad valorem 150 per cent ad valorem 140 per cent ad valorem 100 per cent ad valorem [Notification No. 36-Cus., dated 1-3-1983] 6. The appellants case is that even after the amendment of the table annexed to Notification No. 36/83-Cus. by Notification No. 219/83 resulting in deletion of Serial No. 3 relating to Polyester Chips and amendment of Sr. No. 4 to provide for exclusion of Polyester Chips the benefit of the Notification could not be denied to them since Polyester chips being Polyester resins were covered by Serial No. 1(iv) of the table annexed to the Notification and attracted the concessional import duty of 150 per cent ad valorem and only 75% ad valorem in respect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich a clear distinction has been made between synthetic resin and plastic by stating that whereas synthetic resin is polymer itself, plastic is polymer plus such additives as fillers, colorant, plasticizers, etc. 41. A reference to Fibres, Films, Plastics and Rubbers by Roff and Scott will show that there is an independent Chapter on Plasticisers (Section 56) and a plasticiser is described as a substance added to a high polymer to reduce brittleness or impart flexibility, or to increase flexibility especially at low temperature. It acts like a solvent, penetrating the polymer and lowering the inter-molecular cohesion. 41A. In Encyclopaedia of Basic Materials for Plastics also, there is a Chapter on Fillers, and Fillers are defined as comminuted solid materials which occupy a volumetric proportion of a plastics composition as discontinuous phase and it is stated that some fillers are used primarily for reducing the cost of plastic. There are organic and inorganic fillers. But from the nature of the chemical difference between a synthetic resin simpliciter and a plastic resulting from addition of fillers, colorant, plasticisers, in our view, it will be wholly impermissible to equ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h or commercially conversant with those substances would attribute to them. It appears that judgment proceeded on the footing that the Department itself has treated the two expressions synthetic resins and plastics as interchangeable and the Court was concerned with the question as to how the expression plastic or plastic material was understood by commercial persons who deal in it. The view taken in that case was that caprolactam polymer chips of the spinning grade obtained by the company for the manufacture of nylon yarn were not regarded as raw material for the manufacture of plastic goods or plastic articles and were not commercially known as plastics. Having regard to the view which we have taken of the nature of the items covered by Item 15A(1), the decision in Nirion Synthetic Fibres Chemicals Ltd s case cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. 43. We need not refer in detail to the decision of the Delhi High Court in J.K. Synthetic Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise in which the relevant Item 15A which fell for consideration, was as it was in 1962 and the question was whether polymer chips were plastics within the meaning of Item 15A. 44. In the view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates