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 (6) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... valorem on the product P.U. Cement which was prepared by dissolving an imported duty paid resinous product in a volatile organic solvent known as MEK (Methyl Ethyl Katone). A catalyst/hardner was required to be added before the actual use of the product. A sample of the product was drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical test. In the Test Memo No. 1/83, dated 22-12-1983 the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample was composed of synthetic resin, polyurethane, dissolved in a volatile solvent. On the basis of the findings of the Chemical Examiner, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice alleging that the product P.U. Cement was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(1) at the rate of 40% ad valorem and by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us. He referred to the Supplementary Affidavit and its enclosures filed by the appellants and stated that after receiving the show cause notice dated 22/29-1-1986 the appellants addressed a letter dated 24-6-1986 to the Collector asking for the Chemical Examiner s report referred to in the show cause notice. He added that thereafter the Assistant Collector along with his letter dated 30-1-1986 forwarded the said test report. He referred to endorsement dated 14-6-1985 by the Assistant Collector on the said report to the effect that the product in question was classifiable under Tariff Item No.15A(1) and contended that the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 22/29-1-1986 was illegal since the Assistant Collector had already p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cifically covered by Tariff Item 15A(1). 3. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Sharad Bhansali, Learned SDR referred to the impugned order and reiterated the findings of the Collector. 4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions on behalf of both sides. The appellants case is that Tariff Item 15A(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff covers only certain synthetic resins which are specifically listed under the said Item. They have contended that the disputed product being a mixture obtained only by mechanical stirring of a mixture of imported Synthetic Resin and a volatile organic solvent, it did not involve the manufacture of any Synthetic Resin and accordingly it could not be deemed as classifiable un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ponding to the Explanation III(a) below the description of goods in Tariff Item 15A(1). We also find that the Collector failed to give a finding on the appellants contention that the disputed product was not classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(1) which covered only certain specified varieties of Synthetic Resins and the process carried out by them using imported Synthetic Resin did not amount to the manufacture of any of the Synthetic Resins specified in the said Tariff Item. 7. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the Collector is non-speaking and shows non-application of mind. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector for re-adjudication in accordance with law. We direct that befo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... taken by the appellants. But even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that a new product was formed, again the department has not produced any evidence to show that it specifically answers any of the criteria or description specifically mentioned in Tariff item 15-A read with the explanations thereunder. However, it is not necessary to labour the point of classification further in view of our observations in Paras (1) (2) above which go to show that the material was not excisable. Hence, in my opinion it was not necessary to remand the matter and the appeal can be accepted straightaway. 12. It is allowed accordingly. 13. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - On going through the orders written by my learned Brothers, I .....

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