9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of full duty exemption under notification no. 50/03-CE. For manufacture of the paper based decorative laminates, they require Melamine Formaldehyde Resins (MFR) and Phenol Cardanol Phenol Formaldehyde Resins (CPFR. For this purpose, they were purchasing Formaldehyde, Phenol, Melamine etc. The departments contention is that the appellant are also manufacturing MFR and CPFR which are plastic resins falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff and are covered by the negative list of the exemption notification no. 50/03CE and are accordingly not eligible for duty exemption under this notification. Since the final product of the appellant was being cleared at nil rate of duty under notification no. 50/03CE., the captive consumption n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant as the test reports supplied are of the samples drawn on 7/4/2011; that besides this, the appellant had sought cross-examination of the chemical examiner and also of various other person according to whose opinion, the goods, in question, are marketable but the same has been disallowed by the Commissioner; that there is, thus, gross violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground itself, the impugned order is not sustainable; and that there is absolutely no justification for treating the goods as marketable and there is also no evidence to prove that the plastic resins had come into existence. It was, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and hence, the requirement of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty demand within the normal limitation period and in that case, the Tribunal had gone into the question of classification of these products and also into the question of their marketability and had observed that these questions require in depth examination at the stage of final hearing and hence these cases do not merit unconditional waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. Shri Negi pleaded that above order of the Tribunal must be followed in this case. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. 7. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the Melamine Formaldehyde Resins (MFR) and Phenol Cardanol Formaldehyde Resins (PCFR) which are made by the appellant for captive use in the manufacture of their fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
