9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the product Vetiverol Residue is classifiable under sub-heading 2942.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as approved by both the lower Authorities or under sub-heading 3301.00 of the CETA as claimed by the Department. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Eastern Aeromatics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er heading 29.42 observing that the Vetiverol residue mainly contained Polymerised chemicals along with waste plant materials; that a resinoid is a perfumery material prepared from natural resinous substances by extraction with Hydrocarbon type of solvent as defined in Perfume and Flavour Materials of Natural Origin by Stephan Ariandar, 1960 Edition. On appeal preferred by the Department, the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Terpenic-by product was by way of identification of component present in the essential oil with a view to determine its correct classification; that according to Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, the two most abundant natural sources of Terpenic oil are Turpenic and other essential oils; that fractional distillation is the most commonly used method for separating mixtures with their compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for classifying the impugned product only as Resinoid based on the report of the Chemical Examiner. In show cause notice it was not mentioned that the impugned product could be classified also as Turpenic by product. In view of these facts, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in holding that treating the product as a terpenic-by product was a new point incorporated for the first time in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d smelling. The Revenue has neither controverted the findings of the Assistant Collector nor adduced any further test report after the product has been examined chemically in support of their contention. 5. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Revenue has not substantiated their claim that the impugned product is classifiable under subheading 3301.00 of C.E.T.A. and we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
