TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Collector allowed the appeals and ordered additional duty to be charged under item 68 of CET (The revenue filed appeals in such cases). The question before us is, therefore, whether the imported goods Acrylic Plastic Scrap are liable to countervailing duty under item 15A(1)-CET or under item 68 thereof. 3. Shri Sundar Rajan, Ld. JDR supporting the classification of the goods under 15(A)(1) CET referred to four Judgments on the question, all passed by the Tribunal. These Judgments were as follows : 1983 (12) E.L.T. S45 Mysore Plastics. 1984 ECR 2550 Pearl Plastics. 1987 (31) E.L.T. 308 (Tribunal) = 1983 ECR 1171 Paresh Products. 1984 (16) E.L.T. 438 Parash Products. Shri Sundar Rajan submitted that all these Judgments related to imports prior to 1-3-1982 (when the Tariff Item 15A was amended) and he was referring to those Judgments only for the purpose of record and not reliance. He stated that explanation III, which was added to the Tariff item on 1-3-1982 covered waste and scrap, and therefore, the imported goods which were waste and scrap were liable to duty under item 15A(1)-CET. He further submitted that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) referred to the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984-ECR-2550 (supra) in support of his argument about the mouldability of the imported goods. 8. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Before proceeding to the relevant facts and merits of the arguments, we referred to item 15A-CET as it stood after amendment on 1-3-1982. The relevant part of the Tariff is reproduced below:- 15A. ARTIFICIAL OR SYNTHETIC RESINS AND PLASTIC MATERIALS, AND OTHER MATERIALS AND ARTICLES SPECIFIED BELOW:- (1) Condensation, polycondensation and polyaddition products, whether or not modified or polymerised, and whether or not linear (for example, pheno-plasts, aminoplasts, alkyds, polyallyl esters and other unsaturated polyesters, silicones); polymerisation and co-polymerisation products (for example, polyethylene, polytetrahaloe-thylenes, polyisobutylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl chloroacetate and other polyvinyl derivatives, polyacrylic and polymethacrylic derivatives coumaroneindene resins); regenerated cellulose; cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate and other cellulose esters, cellulose ethers and other chemicals derivatives of cellulose, plasticised or not (for example, collodions, celluloid); vul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classified under sub-item 1) has to be rejected as the language is quite clear and shows that the explanation III places restriction on the scope of the item and does not enlarge it. To accept Shri Sundar Rajan, Ld. JDR s submissions, it is necessary to ignore the word only occurring in the Explanation III. In M/s. Paresh Products, Jamnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (16) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)], the Tribunal was dealing with a similar question with reference to imports of the commodity prior to 1982. Recalling Shri Sunder Rajan s arguments that scrap can be directly moulded and so qualifies for assessment as resin under sub-item (1) of item 15A, we referred to the following part of the order where the same arguments appear to have been put forward: The question debated before us was whether the scrap can be directly moulded and so qualify for assessment as a resin under sub-item (1) of 15A CET. The learned counsel for the Deparement argued hard that the explanation to Item 15A which says that sub-item (1) should include waste and scrap should be understood to mean that these re-mouldable scraps must find a place in that sub-item. He hold that orders of the lower au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants has not been controverted by the Department. The Department s representative instead relied on the earlier Tribunal Order No. 222-229/1983-C. On perusal of this Order, we find that it related to cellulose acetate scrap and not to acrylic scrap. The goods being different in that case and the one before us now; no reliance could be placed on the earlier Order unless it was shown that properties of cellulose acetate scrap and acrylic scrap were identical which has not been done. Since the appellants contention that acrylic scrap did not possess plasticity remains uncontroverted, we agree with the earlier Bench Order at 1983 (12) E.L.T. 845 that acrylic scrap could not be considered a plastic material". 12. Also relevant is the extract from the Order in M/s. Mysore Industrial Plastic Corporation, Kengeri, Bangalore v. Collector of Customs, Madras (Reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 845 (CEGAT); wherein also the same question was examined though the import related to the period prior to the amendment of Tariff item 15A. The real dispute before us whether the categorisation given by the Appellate Collector of Customs can be held to be correct and valid. We reject the Revenue s co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
