2002 (7) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. Both appeals involve a common issue namely, classification of a product described by the appellants herein as phenol formaldehyde resins and claiming classification under CET sub-heading 3909.51 but held by the department to be Other Phenolic Resins falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 3909.59. 2. The demand of duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the basis of the department s case is the test report dated June, 1990 of the Dy. Chief Chemist and the Chief Chemist's report dated 28-5-1992. The report of the Dy. Chief Chemist is that the sample is phenolic resin in the form of lumps . It does not state anywhere that the sample is not phenol formaldehyde resin. The Chief Chemist s report says that the samples are modified phenolic resins an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X