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

2001 (1) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... present appeal. In adjudication of the classification list No. 156/85-86 dated 18.10.85 filed by the party classifying the product under T.I. 15A and claiming exemption under Notification No. 70/84 dated 1-3-84, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise; Division-V, Baroda approved the classification of the product as Maleic Resin under T.I. No. 15A/CSH No. 3907.50 and held the goods to be eligible for concession under Notification No. 70/84 as per order dated 28-6-90. This order of the Assistant Collector became final. While the above matter was pending before the A.C., the Range Supdt. had issued show-cause notice dated 14-10-86 to the party demanding duty of Rs. 43,209.55 on the clearances of the product for the period 1985 to 1986. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Assistant Collector s order had become final. They submitted that the demand of duty raised in the SCN issued beyond the period of six months was time-barred. On the merits of case, the party contended that the Chemical Examiner s report did not mean that chemically the product was not Maleic Resin . Regarding the Deputy Chief Chemist s report, they contended that the presence of styrene would not affect the applicability of the Notification to the product. They also relied on the Tribunal s decision in C.C.E. v. Eastern Chemofarb Ltd. [1988 (34) E.L.T. 173 (Tri.) = 1987 (13) ECR 882]. 4. The Additional Commissioner in adjudication of the dispute passed order dated 15-4-91 confirming the demand of duty. The present appeal by the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the product in dispute was not maleic resin. Its reasoning was that the reports of test and re-test did not state that the product was maleic resin; that the aforesaid Explanation to the Notification did not permit use of Phthalic anhydride (which, according to the write-up submitted by the party to the Chemical Examiner, had been used by them for the manufacture of the product in question) in addition to Maleic acid in the manufacture of Maleic resin; and that while both Maleic Acid and Phthalic anhydride were diabasic acids, use of the former only was permitted as per the aforesaid Explanation. Ld. Additional Collector stated the crucial point along with his conclusion on such point as under :- While maleic acid and Phthalic Anhydrid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ical Examiner that the sample fell under the general category of unsaturated polyester resins. Again, it was reported by the Dy. Chief Chemist that the sample merited consideration as unsaturated polyester resin. The present appellant s case is that their product was obtained by treating Maleic Acid with polyhydric alcohol. The Dy. Chief Chemist s report, inter alia, stated that the sample was a condensation product of dibasic acid and polyhydric alcohol. The Chemical Dictionary consulted by us says that Maleic Acid is an unsaturated dicarboxylic (dibasic) acid. Further, chemical literature says that the reaction between a carboxylic acid (such as Maleic Acid) and an alcohol resulting in the formation of an ester is called esterification an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the chemical reports certified the product to be Maleic Resin. Referring to the Dy. Chief Chemist s report, he submitted that a sample of the product was found to contain styrene, which was a reactive monomer according to the test report. He contended that, on account of the presence of a reactive ingredient such as styrene, the product in question would not qualify to be Maleic Resin. We find that this contention of the DR stands successfully countered by the appellants reliance (in the memo of appeal as also in their written submissions dated 15-11-2000) on the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE v. Eastern Chemofarb Ltd. (supra). In that case, the Tribunal was considering Notification No. 157/81-C.E., dated 29-8-1981 which had e .....

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