9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held by the Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, in the impugned order dated 26-5-1994 and whether the demand is hit by time limit as specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri Jintendra Singh, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Phenol Formaldehyde Resins and the inputs used are organic and/or inorganic chemicals falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of C.E.T.A.; that in the classification lists filed by them, all the details including the description of the inputs and the end use were disclosed and classification lists were approved by the Assistant Collector classifying the product under sub-heading 3905.51; that the samples were drawn by the department periodically and Chemical Examiner confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... henol Formaldehyde Resin was chemically modified by use of alcochol, ethyl alcohol and resin, it was classifiable under sub - heading 3909.59 in view of Notes 5 and 14 to Chapter 39. The ld. Advocate contended that the ratio of this decision is not applicable as no alcohol was used by the Appellants. 3. The ld. Advocate also submitted that the entire demand is time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 13-3-1992 for demanding the excise duty for the period from 8-3-1989 to 3-7-1990; that not only the classification lists with all details were filed by them and approved by the Assistant Collector, the samples of the same goods were drawn on earlier occasions on 25-5-1988 and 8-1-1989 and reports of Chemical Examiner indicated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nol Formaldehyde Resin and as such material facts were suppressed by the Appellants. 5. In reply, the ld. Advocate submitted that not all modifications will be covered by Note 14 to chapter 39; that according to Note 14, the change should be according to Note 5. Regarding change in the ingredients, he mentioned that only three additional items were used for the first time; that there was not a whisper about the change in ingredients in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Chemical Examiner has clearly opined in his report dated 25-7-1990, that the product is resin modified phenol formaldehyde resin, it may merit consideration under Phenolicresin others" under Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit for demanding duty is not available to the department in the present matter. It is not disputed by the Revenue that earlier samples were drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiner for determining whether they are Phenol Formaldehyde Resins falling under T.I. No. 3905.51. The test reports indicated that they are products falling under sub - heading 3909.51 of C.E.T.A. The Appellants had filed classification list in which besides mentioning the principal raw materials, the end use of the products were also indicated. In light of these facts it cannot be claimed that they had made any misrepresentation of facts as the subsequent Test Report revealed the product to be a modified Phenol Formaldehyde resin. The Revenue has missed the point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
