9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsisted of Co-polymer resin 74.50%, Plasticiser 22.70%, Stabilizer 2.45% and Chemical Addative 0.35%. 2. From 1971 the classification of this commodity kept on changing. In 1971 the Assistant Collector decided that it was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) as articles of plastic. In October, 1973 the Collector (Appeals) held that it was not an article of plastic and was, therefore, not excisable. In March, 1975 with the introduction of residuary Tariff Item No. 68 the commodity was classified thereunder. In 1978 the Department again classified the same commodity under Tariff Item 15A(2). In 1980, Gujarat High Court held that since the plastic material was not the principal and predominant ingredient and that it worked only as a bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic. He said that Collector was in error in holding that for classification under Chapter 39, the articles should be made wholly of plastic. He also urged that predominance of a single ingredient should not have been made the basis of classification. Citing from Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, he claimed that an article consisting of 10 to 15% of Vinyl Chloride, rest being fillers, were also capable of being termed as floor covering. In the contested goods, the plastic contents is about 21%. It was claimed that in view of the change in Tariff, the Supreme Court's earlier order classifying the impugned product under Tariff Item 68 would have to be distinguished. A citation of an advertisement was made to show that impugned goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tio of the judgment of Gujarat High Court. In the advertisement cited in the Appeal Memorandum there is nothing to suggest that assessees have admitted that the impugned goods are articles of plastics. Although commercial parlance may be material in classification in view of the pronouncement made by the Courts, beyond making a bare statement that goods are known in the market as articles of plastic, the Appeal Memorandum is silent. 9. In view of the specific pronouncement of Gujarat High Court which has been upheld by the Supreme Court and in view of the admitted fact that composition of the impugned goods remains unchanged, we find no justification in the plea of the Revenue that the order of the Collector is devoid of merit. We, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
