9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed as "finishing agents, dye-fixing agents of a kind used in textile, paper and leather." Both the products were classified under Heading 38.09 (SH 3809.00) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The proper officer of Central Excise approved the classification list, but the department objected by way of appeal filed with the Collector (Appeals). The appellate authority held in favour of the Revenue by classifying urea-formaldehyde resin under SH 3909.10 and melamine formaldehyde resin under SH 3909.20. The above appeal was filed against this classification ordered by the lower appellate authority. 2. The department issued three show-cause notices covering the total period, March 93 to February 94, to the assessee classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondensate also. The learned Counsel has also referred to expert opinion. He has produced a copy of the opinion given by Professor (Dr) M.A. Shenoy, Professor of Polymer Technology, University Department of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai, dated 27-1-2004. According to this opinion, both the products are in the category of "textile auxiliaries and finishing agents." On the strength of this opinion the learned counsel has canvassed classification of the goods as "finishing agents", dye fixing agents etc under SH 3809.00. He has also referred to certain decisions of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court, a few of which are S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Mum.), Duratex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has got to take into account, the finer description given by the assessee, which was never sought to be modified by them. Urea-formaldehyde and melamine-formaldehyde resins were respectively classified under SH 3909.10 and 3909.20 of the CETA Schedule during the material period. It is not in dispute that these resins are condensation polymers of urea-formaldehyde and melamine-formaldehyde; (b) The Chemical Examiner's report on the sample drawn from the assessee's factory during the material period shows that the subject goods were in the form of aqueous solutions of urea-formaldehyde and melamine-formaldehyde resins respectively. This report was never challenged by the assessee. It appears from the relevant HSN Notes that resins in aqueo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ldehyde resin and melamine-formaldehyde resin should be appropriately classified under SH 3909.10 and 3909.20 respectively. 6. In the result, the classification dispute stands settled in favour of the Revenue and we dismiss appeal E/2822/98. 7. In the remaining two appeals, the short-question is whether any duty of excise is recoverable from the assessee in respect of the above goods which were cleared from the factory during March 93 to February 94. It is not in dispute that, if the goods are classified under Heading 3909 as proposed by the Revenue, duty is recoverable from the assessee. It would follow that the demand of duty against the assessee is liable to be sustained. 8. In the result, these two appeals also get dismissed. (Prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
