SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.D.JHA, HARISH CHANDER, P.C.JAIN
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Goodlass Nerolac Paints – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S. Sunder Rajan,V. Lakshmikumaran

ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the product described s "Modified Short Oil Linseed Oil Alkyd" for internal consumption inside their own factory by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as assessee) is covered by the expression Alkyd resins as defined in the notification 122/71-CE dated 1.6.71 (as amended). The assessee's contention is that it is covered by the said expression -and is in fact a chemically modified Alkyd resin as included within the scope of the said expression in the notification. On the other hand, the Revenue insists that it is not a chemically modified resin. The lower appellate authority has upheld the contention of the assessee.

2. As stated in the grounds of appeal on the authority of the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay, who tested the sample of the product drawn by the department, the product is "composed of synthetic resin based on poly basic acid, polyhydric alcohol, monobasic fatty acid, rosin and formaldehyde. The assessee has used about 1.5% of paraformaldehyde on phthalic anhydride content. It is contended that paraformaldehyde goes in the chemical reaction to reduce the functionality of polyol in the synthe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top