Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (12) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) alleging that the appellants misdeclared the products describing as PICITACK-72, PICITACK-725, PICITACK-BAC, PICITACK-RTC and BLANKOLEV as prepared glues and other prepare adhesives not elsewhere specified or included other than those based on plastics. It was alleged that the appellants wrongly availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 125/87, dated 29-4-1987; that the samples of the product were drawn and sent to the Chief Chemical Examiner, New Delhi for testing of their chemical composition; that the Chief Chemical Examiner in his report has reported that the samples were in the form of colourless transparent viscous liquid; that they were composed of synthetic resin (acrylic type) dissolved in non-aqueous medium (volat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at after receipt of the SCN they classified their product under chapter heading 35.06; that the classification of these products under chapter heading 32.08 is incorrect; that para 'C' of page 462 of HSN stipulates that such solution as referred to in Note 3 under Chapter 32 must comprise of accelerators, retarders, cross-linking agents; that these are conspicuously absent in their case; that the Chemical Examiner has not given any finding on this aspect; that they requested for retest of the samples; that they also asked for cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner; that the glues of similar composition notwithstanding the above contention are excluded from the preview of the Chapter 32 in terms of exclusion given on page 42 of HSN; that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... certaining true meaning of any expression used in the Act in case of any doubt. For examining this contention, let us examine 3 competing entries which are as under :- Chapter Heading 32.08 :"Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on synthetic polymers or chemically modified natural polymers, dispersed or dissolved in a non-aqueous medium; solutions as defined in Note 4 to this chapter." "Heading 35.06 : Prepared glues and other prepared adhesives, not elsewhere specified or included; products suitable for use as glues or adhesives, put up for retail sale as glues or adhesives, not exceeding net weight of 1 kg." Heading 39.06 : "Acrylic Polymers in Primary forms. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that sub-heading 3208.20 a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri Ravinder Babu, ld. JDR submits that the samples were drawn; that they were tested and the Chemical Examiner reported that the samples in the form of colourless transparent viscous liquid composed of synthetic resin (acrylic type) dissolved in non-acqueous medium (volatile organic solvents); that the volatile organic solvent is more than 50% in weight in each case. Ld. JDR submits that the Chemical Examiner further reported that the chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 may also be seen. He submits that the admitted position is that the product in dispute consist of synthetic resin dissolved in volatile organic solvents and that the weight of the volatile organic solvents in the tested sample was more than 50%. He submits that Note 3 of Chapte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here are 3 headings under which the product can be classified. He submits that the headings are 32.08, 35.06 and 39.06 therefore in terms of Interpretative Rule 3(c) latter heading i.e. 35.06 should be taken for classification. We find that there is no ambiguity nor are two headings equally attracted for classification of the products before us. We hold that Interpretative Rule 3(c) is not applicable to the case under reference. We have also seen the case law on the subject. We have also examined two decisions in the case of Bharat Sales Corporation [1989 (42) E.L.T. 301] and Voltas Limited [1991 (56) E.L.T. 569]. In these two cases, this Tribunal had found that the product equally attracted 2 different headings and, therefore the provision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates