Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1990 (11) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is contended by the Revenue that the product remains a resin meriting classification under TI 15A(1) of the Excise Tariff Schedule. They have relied upon the literature of the respondents in which the product is described as resin made of epoxy based synthetic resin. The Revenue have contended that the paste in green pack cannot be treated as an article of plastic. To be an article, the goods should have a permanent shape and should be capable of retaining the shape for the purpose of its subsequent use for which it is intended. An epoxy based reinforced plastic sheet, for example, is an article of epoxy resin which has a permanent and durable shape of its own. It is further submitted by the Revenue that sealant/caulking compound of the nature as in this case are nothing but adhesive formulations required for jointing purposes and an article of any shape does not emerge out from such compounds. So, the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of exemption under Notification No. 182/82, dated 11-5-1982. The Collector of C.E (A) in the impugned order has upheld the respondent's contention that duty had been paid on the epoxy resin. The respondents had only mixed this epoxy resin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (2) Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Jayant Oil Mills [1989 22) ECR 161 SC] (3) Collector of Central Excise v. Popular Cotton Covering Works [1989 (43) E.L.T. 742 (Tribunal)] This has been confirmed by Supreme Court as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. A33. (1) Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad v Anil Chemicals [1986 (6) ECR 375 = 1985 (21) E.L.T. 889 (Tribunal) (2) Union of India v. Chougule & Co. [1985 ECR 263 SC] 5. We have heard both the sides, examined the rival contentions and perused the citations referred to by the counsel. The question for consideration is whether mixing of fillers with epoxy resin will produce any new article and whether such a process will amount to manufacture. It is well settled that the process should bring change in name, character or use in the product and all process will not result in manufacture. In the instant case, the epoxy resin which is duty paid, has been mixed with fillers. The mixing of fillers has not brought about any chemical change. The literature produced by the learned advocate shows that this mixing of epoxy resin with fillers has been made with a view to make it more readily usable as contended by the learned adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isposed of appeal No. E. 1670/85-C Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., Hyderabad - [1990 (48) E.L.T. 90] the issue was whether a product called "dough moulding compound" prepared out of duty paid polyester resins and inorganic fillers and cellulosic fibres would be classifiable under Item No. 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule of 1944. After discussing the matter at length and taking note of certain authorities, the Bench came to the conclusion that the compound was liable to be charged to duty under Item No. 15A(1) CET and that the assessee would be eligible for the benefit of Central Excise Rule 56A, that is to say, he would be eligible to take credit of the duty paid on the resin towards payment of duty on the dough moulding compound. In the present instance the only difference is that the product is made of epoxy synthetic resin and organic fillers. In my opinion the principle of the Tribunal's decision in the Bakelite Hylam case (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. I would, therefore, propose an order holding that there has been manufacture and that the subject product was classifiable under Item No. 15A(1) of the CET. 8. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri L. Narasimha Murthy, DR for the appellant Collector & Shri J. S. Agarwal, advocate for the respondents. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the order of reference and it is therefore not necessary to repeat them. It is an admitted position that the product in question remains a resin after the synthetic resin is mixed with inorganic fillers. The technical literature of the product placed before us by the learned advocate explains the process of mixing resin with hardener to form a compound (emphasis supplied): HOW TO MIX "The resin and hardener are supplied in the form of sticks of equal cross sections. The resin stick is white in colour whereas the hardener is black. Depending upon the quantity required, equal lengths of the resin and hardener are cut with a knife as shown in diagram. The polythene wrapping is stripped and the compound is thoroughly mixed by hand. Mixing is done till the compound attains uniform grey colour and is free from patches, etc. The compound is now ready for use". We have also seen the samples of the product which is sold in sets consisting of green pack (resin) & black pack (hardener). The two components are mixed at the user's end ....