9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 40.05. The authorities at the time of importation of the goods had got the sample tested and copy of the test report had been furnished to the appellants. On the basis of the said test results, the appraiser had confirmed classification under Chapter sub-heading 3214.90 by holding that the product was not synthetic rubber but a sealant. The said classification under the Bill of Entry after the test carried out on the product was not challenged by the appellants. They filed a refund claim claiming the item to be synthetic rubber. They did not file any evidence or material to substantiate their claim. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner rejected their claim as unsubstantiated. He has relied on the earlier Dy. Chief Chemist's test result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modified inert inorganic filler. The write up also explains that the Butyl Rubber Based 45 mm wide Glasticord synthetic rubber strips straps between two flanges of Glass reinforced plastic sections and fasten the flanges by metal bolts and nuts. The ultimate product is a reservoir to hold potable water. It is clear from the above that the item functions as a sealant strip by restricting, leakage of water from the sewage from inside the tank. The suppliers had confirmed that the item unvulcanised. Butyl Band Rubber is compounded with fillers and additives. However, the suppliers have expressed their unwillingness to disclose any further details of the exact formulation. The test report has also confirmed that the item is Rubber band sealant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that on the basis of this literature produced by them, the appellants' claim that it is a flexible synthetic rubber classifiable under Chapter 40 is required to be upheld as the item is not a sealant/mastics under Chapter heading 32. The appellants have also filed a written submission detailing the grounds for setting aside the impugned order and for relying on the judgment cited by them and also that the judgment rendered in the case of Lalitha Rubber Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1999 (106) E.L.T. 278] and National Insulated Cable Co. [1994 (74) E.L.T. 568]. 3.Ld. DR, Shri Sudarsan, submits that the appellants have not challenged the test results and the classification at the initial appraisal stage. They ought to have produced total ingredients of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chemical examiner's report not having been challenged, the appellants have now no case at all. 4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we are inclined to accept the arguments raised by ld. DR in the matter. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by both the authorities. The classification was done on the basis of Chemical Examiner's report on the product. The classification adopted under Chapter 32 at the initial stage on clearance of goods on the basis of the Chemical Examiner's report was not challenged. Even the supplier had clearly indicated that they are not going to disclose the details of the formulations. Further, for that reason, the authorities held that their claim has not been substantiated. In order to clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
