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

1994 (1) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s; (2) Master Batches of Low Density Polyethylene granule with organic chemical and other additives; and (3) Compound of Low Density Polyethylene granule prepared with admixture of other additives. They filed a classification list effective from 1-9-1988 claiming classification of the above product under sub-heading 3901.10 on the grounds that in terms of Note (1), (3) and (6) of Chapter 39 Master Batches cannot be deemed as manufactured products/goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act. However, by his order dated 19-7-1990, the Assistant Collector held that PVC Compound containing organic pigments was classifiable under sub-heading 3204.19 and PVC Compound containing inorganic pigments was classifiable under sub-heading 3206.90. Being ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to 1-3-1986 the Tribunal s finding was against the appellant, no recovery would be permissible for the period prior to that date since in the show cause notice the Department sought to classify the goods under T.I. 14-I(1)(ii) as against the appellants claim for assessment under Tariff Item 15-A(1), whereas the Tribunal had held that during that period the goods in question were classifiable under TI 68. He argued that no show cause notice classifying the goods under T.I. 68 having been issued, no recovery would be permissible in terms of the Tribunal s decision. In support of his contention he cited the following case law : 1. Kutty Flush Doors Furniture Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 730 (Tribunal); 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... coloured plastic granule but Master Batches. He stated that in terms of Note 2 to Chapter 32 the goods in question were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3204.19 if they were based on inorganic pigment and under sub-heading 3206.90 if they were based on inorganic colouring matter. On these grounds, he pleaded for rejection of the appeal. 4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the question whether LDPE colours/pigments (Master Batches) would be classifiable as plastic resin under sub-item (1) of Item 15-A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff or under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff was examined by the Tribunal in the appellants own case and rep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Chapter 32, Master Batches being preparation based on colouring matter of a kind used for imparting colour or as an ingredient in the manufacture of colouring preparation would be classifiable under Heading 32.04 or 32.06 as the case may be. The appellants have contended that for the period 25-1-1986 to 28-2-1986 no recoveries would be permissible in terms of the Tribunal s decision holding the Master Batches as classifiable under TI 68 since show cause notice issued by the Department sought to classify the goods under T.I. 14-I(1)(ii) and no fresh show cause notice was issued within the statutory time limit seeking to classify the goods under T.I. 68. In this regard they have placed reliance on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Ku .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Tribunal, however, arrived at an altogether different finding and held that the goods in question were classifiable under T.I. 68 and ordered that the appellants classification list shall be approved in the foregoing terms with consequential relief and adjustment as may be called for. The appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms. In this regard it is seen that in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 242, the Tribunal had held that when classification was made by the Appellate Collector under a different entry than the one set out in the show cause notice on the basis of the fact in the case he could not be deemed to have made out a new case not make known to the .....

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