1980 (3) TMI 83 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over levy of c.v. duty on imported consignment of Rutenol Recryst
- Classification of Rutenol Recryst under Tariff Item 65 of CET as rubber processing chemical-antioxidant
- Argument regarding actual use of Rutenol Recryst in the manufacture of high density polyethylene instead of rubber
- Consideration of changing technology impact on product use
- Evidence presented by petitioners including telex, catalogues, and letters from suppliers
- Definition and scope of rubber antioxidants in the context of Tariff Item 65 of CET
- Analysis of chemical composition and literature references regarding Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant
- Examination of various publications and authorities recommending Rutenol Recryst as a powerful antioxidant for rubber
- Rejection of Revision application by the Government of India based on the classification and recognition of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute over the levy of c.v. duty on an imported consignment of Rutenol Recryst, classified under Tariff Item 65 of CET as a rubber processing chemical-antioxidant. The petitioners contested this classification, claiming the consignment was intended for use in the manufacture of high density polyethylene, not rubber. They argued that the changing technology impact should be considered, presenting evidence such as telexes, catalogues, and letters from suppliers to support their case.

The Government of India analyzed the definition and scope of rubber antioxidants in the context of Tariff Item 65 of CET. They observed that rubber antioxidants are organic chemicals used to protect rubber from deterioration, regardless of other potential uses. The chemical composition of Rutenol Recryst was identified as 4, 4'-Thiobis-(6-tert-butyl-3-methyl phenol), confirmed by literature references and supplier information. Various publications and authorities, including Monsanto, recommended Rutenol Recryst as a powerful antioxidant specifically for rubber, further supporting its classification.

The Government highlighted references from authentic sources like the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology and Kirk-Othmer's Encyclopaedia, which categorically listed 4, 4'-Thiobis-(6-tert-butyl-meta-cresol) as a commonly used rubber antioxidant. The petitioners' own supplier's leaflet endorsed the use of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant. Despite the petitioners' arguments, the Government concluded that the classification of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant was well-established in literature and industry recommendations, leading to the rejection of the Revision application.

In summary, the judgment delves into the technical and commercial aspects of classifying Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant under Tariff Item 65 of CET. It emphasizes the importance of recognized definitions and industry standards in determining the classification of imported goods, ultimately upholding the levy of c.v. duty based on the established use of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber processing chemical-antioxidant.