9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication list filed in 1991-92, they had claimed classification of the products under Heading 3208.90. In the classification list pertaining to the year 1992-93, however, they classified the products under Heading 3210.90. The Assistant Commissioner first approved this classification but later vide notice dated 8-4-1993 sought to change back to Heading 3208.90. After hearing the assessees, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the classification under Heading 3208.90 and directed the assessees to file a revised classification list. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the classification, the present appeal is filed before us. 2. Before us Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate argued the same points as were argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final products. Secondly, we observe that the raw material is not maleic resin but rosin modified maleic resin. We are not aware to the extent of modification made nor was the ld. Counsel able to throw any light thereupon. But what is visible and discernible from the chemical examination report is that maleic resin is modified and could not be called as the primary form of plastic. The distinction between the chapter Heading 3208 and 3209 is on the nature of the medium used for dispersal or dissolution of the paints and varnishes. Non-aqueous medium would fall under heading 3208 and aqueous medium would fall under Heading 3209. Shri Shroff would opt for the latter. His ground is that the show cause notice shows alcohol as raw material. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. Appeal No. E/825-R/95 : 6. Vide show cause notice dated 10-8-1993, differential duty was demanded for the period March, 1993 to July, 1993 on the presumption that the contested goods described above classified under Chapter heading 3210.90 as alleged in the show cause notice dated 8-4-1993 in the proceedings relating to appeal No. E/928-R/95. 7. The first argument advanced by Shri Shroff was the applicability of the 5 Member judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Ltd. [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) = 1999 (34) RLT 709]. Paragraphs 12 to 15 thereof read as below : Rule 173B deals with classification lists. It entitles the proper officer of Excise to make such inquiry thereon as he deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceedings, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 above, the demand in the present proceedings would survive only from the date of issue of show cause notice seeking to amend the approval already granted. This would cover in the present dispute the period of March and the first week of April. 10. Shri Shroff then submits that the remaining portion of the duty confirmed is also wrong in law. For this he draws support from the Tribunal judgement in the case of Omkar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. [1999 (32) RLT 156]. In this judgement in paragraph 29, the Third Member on reference has referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission [1998 (103) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. In this case it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
