9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessees for classification as PVC compound under 3904.20 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the first appellant and Rs. 10,000/- on the second appellant, who is the Commercial Manager of the first appellant company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Rishiroop Polymers P. Ltd. manufactured Polyvinyl chloride, etc. They also manufactured a product called Vinrub during the period October, 1985 to December, 1986 and declared this as PVC compound falling under T.I. 15A of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification 70/84, dated 1-3-1984. After the introduction of the new Tariff from 1-3-1986, the assessee claimed classification under Heading 3904.20 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed and penalty is imposed as set out above. 3. We have heard Shri S.U. Jagesha, learned Consultant and Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned SDR. 4. We find that for the period in dispute the assessees had filed classification lists describing the product as PVC compound and claiming classification under T.I. 15A (for the period upto 1-3-1986) and exemption from duty under Notification 70/84 and under sub-heading 3904.20 subsequently and claiming benefit of exemption from duty under Notification 132/86. The assessees furnished details regarding raw material and process of manufacture and end use of the disputed product (Vinrub), sample of which was sent for chemical analysis on 3-9-1985 (pages 61 to 62 of the paper book). The classificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were the manufacturers of product VINRUB which was described by them in their classification list effective from 29-8-1985 as PVC compound since it was a new product developed for the first time. While furnishing the classification list they had made known all the facts and after due process the classification list was approved by Asstt. Collector on 27-1-1986. After filing the classification list claiming heading under T.I. 15A as above, the department had drawn samples of the product vide its memo dated 3-9-1985. The appellants had also furnished vide their letter dated 3-9-1985 the detailed description of raw materials used, process of manufacture and the end-use of the final product. However, no test report was communicated to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of their contentions they would also like to cite 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (S.C.) = 1988 (17) ECR 401; 1987 (27) E.L.T. 334 (Tribunal) = 1987 (12) ECR 697; 1986 ECR 1860; 1985 ECR 1031. It was also their submission that their appeal against AC s order has also since been decided and the matter remanded vide order other Collector (A) dated 26-3-1990 observing that Dy. Chief Chemist s report appears to be too casual and the Asstt. Collector should call for a detailed report and if necessary after testing the sample come to a clear factual finding and then decide twin issue of tariff classification and eligibility to 132/86 separately. 6. Even otherwise technical literature filed by them namely extracts from the book Synthetic Rubber b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had correctly declared the process and the product, and in any case the demand was time barred. 9. Ld. DR stated that the assessee claimed the classification of this product under Chapter Heading 3904.20 and claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 132/86. Samples of this product were drawn. The Dy. Chief Chemist, Bombay informed that it is not PVC compound. It was, therefore, noticed that the assessee had wrongly claimed the exemption by mis-declaring the product as PVC compound. A show cause notice dated 31-8-1989, was, therefore, issued. 10. Ld. DR further stated that the central issue in this case is whether the product namely VINRUB manufactured by the assessee merits classification under sub-heading 3904.20 and entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Rule 209A since he was overall incharge of the company and it was his responsibility to have furnished the full and correct information to the department whereas he deliberately misdeclared the product to the department and thereby evaded duty of excise in the past period as aforesaid. 11. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the appellants have been able to show that they had given sufficient details about their product at the very beginning and in fact even after introduction of new tariff they had once again given the details of the ingredients, process of manufacture, nature of the product, end-use and even the percentage of ingredients vide their letter dated 18-11-1986 addressed to Inspector, Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
