9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity of water. The difference among these products is the ratio between methacrylate and water in them. They also submit that methacrylate purchased by them is duty paid and the only process carried out by them is that of dilution. They also submit that methacrylate is in emulsified primary form on purchase by them and after dilution also it is methacrylate in emulsified primary form. They, therefore, submit that the process of dilution carried out does not amount to manufacture warranting assessment to duty on these four items. As the Adjudicating and the Appellate authorities had relied on Note 6 to Chapter 39, they submit that this Chapter Note also did not warrant levy of duty on the items. They contended there is no conversion from on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have reproduced relevant portion of the letter dated 14-5-1990 as follows :- The classification list of the products Ahuracryl PVN, Ahuracryl RCF, Ahuracryl SZA and Ahuracryl TX-50 has been examined in the light of the test reports received. The said products being aqueous emulsion of synthetic resin (acrylic) and manufactured by mere addition of water, etc. to duty paid resin, as per Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay s Order No. 213/B.I 32/82, dated 23-2-1982, these goods continue to be classifiable under T.I. 15A erstwhile tariff but with no further duty liability since manufactured out of duty paid resin. Hence the said products are eligible for assessment at NIL rate of duty. The classification list is approved finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturing process under Sales Tax Law as it would bring into existence a new commercial commodity namely `Methimix [1978 (41) STC 471]. 5. Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. We have perused the records of the case and have considered rival submissions. It would appear that subsequent to the passing of the adjudication order the department had changed its view and had informed the appellant vide letter dated 14-5-1990 that no duty is liable to be paid as the process involved was only one of dilution of the material and duty had been paid on the raw material. The appellant has also relied on several decisions, in particular, the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Tata Exports Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1985 (22) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
